CLASS II.

HC Deb 08 August 1889 vol 339 cc803-52

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £84,062, 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, 1890, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses and Pensions of various County Court Officers, of Divisional Commissioners and Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision.

* MR. A. PEASE (York)

The Motion which stands in my name has been described in the public press as an attack upon the Resident Magistrates of Ireland. I demur to that description of it, for it is not my intention to attack the Resident Magistrates of Ireland generally, but rather to attack the system under which they are appointed, and the manner in which the Chief Secretary administers that system. So far from desiring to denounce the whole body of the Resident Magistracy, I would have them placed in a much higher position in the public estimation, where their impartiality and independence would be above suspicion. It will be my disagreeable duty to criticise the conduct of one or two individuals, but I do not desire to attribute the characteristics of these to the whole class to which they belong. Indeed, in some parts, at any rate of Ulster, the Resident Magistrates are the only Magistrates now saturated with Orange prejudices; and at the hands of the Stipendiary there is the only hope for the Nationalist to obtain that justice which is the birthright of every subject of the Crown. It is my sincere wish to ensure a respect for constituted authority, which is now impossible. I am aware the Chief Secretary and a certain number of hon. Gentlemen opposite look upon the Mr. Cecil Roches, the Captain Segraves, and the County Court Judge Webbs—the latter of whom earned, in some degree at any rate, his preferment to his present position through being assistant author of the articles "Parnellism and Crime," and who has shown his gratitude for his preferment by doubling or increasing on appeal the sentences passed on Members of this House, and other political opponents of the Chief Secretary—I know that these men are looked upon as saviours of society. They are not saviours of society; but I believe there have been Resident Magistrates, County Court Judges, and Judges of the High Court, who have stood between the Government and their attempt to prostitute and degrade the law for political purposes. While the Chief Secretary and a certain section of Irish officials, and those adventurers who may be described as men who bring their loyalty to market, have been engaged in working the law for their own ends, and to gratify a faction, and bringing thereby contempt upon the law, hatred upon its administration, making the rights of properly intolerable, and depriving the people of their Constitutional liberty, there have been men in Ireland who have resisted the pressure of the Castle, of the Government, and that social pressure of the ascendency class in Ireland, more potent because more insidious, there have been men who have endeavoured to give the same law to the Nationalist and the Catholic as to the Protestant and Tory. Now, we find from a Return laid before the House that all the 90 and odd members of the Resident Magistracy occupy their positions during pleasure, and whose pleasure? The pleasure nominally of the Lord Lieutenant, but the pleasure actually of the Chief Secretary. Sir, they occupy their position during the pleasure of a Party man and a Member of the Government. I imagine that in no country would such a state of things be looked upon as fair, either to the public at large or to that section of the judiciary to which these men belong, and I do not think it is fair to the Resident Magistrates themselves that they should feel that the retention of their position, and in some cases their very livelihood, depends, not upon the conscientious discharge of the duties of their office, but upon the favour of the Chief Secretary. Such a condition of service must, in the course of time, degrade the Bench in public estimation, and lead to a certain servility on the part of members of the Bench. I regard unquestioning obedience to the law the state of mind which a good Government should try to cultivate; but the present Administration, by the methods they pursue, constantly raise in the minds of the people the questions: Are the trials fair trials, are the Justices who try the cases fairly appointed, and are the authorities as anxious to secure fair trial for the prisoners, as they are to secure the convictions of the men brought before the Courts? When a Nationalist is brought before a political opponent presiding over one of these Courts, appointed partly on account of his Party bias by a political Minister with strong Party ties, to deal with a case into which political feeling enters very largely, I say the public at large naturally ask the question, is the tribunal a fair tribunal, and is the Magistrate fairly appointed? Now, let me call the attention of the Committee to the qualification of the Resident Magistrates for their office. Of the 90 and odd Resident Magistrates I find that 27 have served in the Army, the Indian Army, or the Militia. Now, it seems to me these are qualifications that do not commend themselves to the people, having regard to the tribunals before which their leaders are brought. They savour rather of a state of Martial Law than of what we expect to see in the United Kingdom under Constitutional Law, and under the reign of what we regard as the Ordinary Law. If we look to the former avocations of Resident Magistrates as given in the third column of this Return we find some very curious qualifications set down. I will not read the names of the Resident Magistrates, but if we commence with No. 7 on this list we find the name of a gentleman who is described as having formerly been a "resident county gentleman and Honorary Secretary to the Tipperary Agricultural Society." Well, I cannot for the life of me see in what way his having been Honorary Secretary to the Tipperary Agricultural Society could be a qualification for the position of a Stipendiary Magistrate in Ireland. The next on the list is described as having "served seven years in the 8th Hussars, and afterwards in the Militia"; the next "served in the Army, and was afterwards Assistant Commissioner in the Dublin Police"; the next "served as High Sheriff in County Limerick in 1881," and "kept all terms for the Bar, but for family reasons was not called." So I might go on through the list giving the qualifications for these gentlemen holding the position they do. There is another objection I take to the system under which Resident Magistrates now act, and that is that there is a confusion between their judicial and executive functions. Under Lord Spencer an effort was, I believe, made to prevent this confusion in the duties of the Resident Magistrates from arising, and to insure that the Magistrates who made orders in Court should not execute the decisions themselves. But now the spectacle is frequently seen of a Resident Magistrate adjudicating on a political case in Court, and then going out to give effect to the orders in person at the head of the police, and sometimes with a blackthorn in his hand, aiding the constables to baton the people. Before I have done I shall allude to some instances of this kind in respect to one Resident Magistrate; but I am glad to say that, so far as my own knowledge goes, it is the only case of a Resident Magistrate taking part in the beating and batoning of the people; there may be other cases, but they are not within my own knowledge. I may call attention to the dictum of an Irish Judge in reference to the Magistracy—it is old, but it is as applicable now as it was to the times in which it was delivered. But there is one remedy that would, in my estimation, more than any other, especially contribute to soothe the minds of the discontented peasantry and thereby enable them patiently to suffer the pressure of those burdens which cannot under existing circumstances be effectually removed; I mean the equal and impartial administration of justice.… … It is not improbable that many men have crept into the Commission who, however useful they might occasionally have been, ought not to remain. The needy adventurer,—the hunter for preferment—the intemperate zealot—the trader in false loyalty—the jobbers of absentees —if any of these various descriptions are found their names should be expunged from the Commission.

* THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman who he is quoting from, and when and where this was said, and was it in reference to the ordinary Bench or to Resident Magistrates especially?

* MR. A. PEASE

The learned Judge was referring, I believe, to the whole Magistracy of the country. The name of the learned Judge was Fletcher. I cannot give the exact date, but he was delivering a charge to the Grand Jury in County Wexford.

MR. W. REDMOND

In 1814.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That is a long time ago.

MR. E. HARRINGTON

So much the better.

* MR. A. PEASE

Well, I say some of these Resident Magistrates are unfitted by their previous training to adjudicate on the cases brought before them under the Crimes Act, and many others are equally unfitted for the executive functions they have to discharge. I have myself seen what I can only describe as the crazy ferocity of a Resident Magistrate almost bring about one of those scenes of bloodshed and brutality which are, unhappily, frequent in Ireland, events which, however much they may gratify the appetite of Tories for giving the Irish a lesson, do more to stimulate the passions of the people and to degrade the Executive, the administration of the law, and to injure the prospects of good orderly government than any other incidents whatever. In one particular instance I have in mind nothing but the good sense of the District Inspector who was at the head of a large force of constabulary and who very freely and liberally interpreted the orders he received prevented an inexcusable scene of wanton bloodshed and brutality. We had yesterday some strictures upon the conduct of the police, but I may say that, so far as my own experience goes, I have never seen the police behave badly except when they have been badly handled by the Resident Magistrates, and although the Resident Magistrates who have mismanaged the police do not form a large proportion of those whose names are mentioned in this Return, yet there have been occasions when the mismanagement of Resident Magistrates has brought about scenes that are a scandal to any civilised country. Such a scene was that at Mitchelstown, when Captain Segrave had command. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must be aware of the chronic disposition and mental attitude of some of these gentlemen towards the people at large. While travelling in the West of Ireland not so long ago, I, for the greater part of one day, had the companionship of a Resident Magistrate, and an agreeable, courteous, pleasant companion he was. In the course of conversation we got on to the question of hunting in the dis- trict, and the stopping of hunting by the occupiers of land in several parts of Ireland, and I asked if hunting had been so stopped in the district near where we then were. He informed me that an attempt had been made, but he said— We gave them a lesson on the first occasion when they tried to prevent us going on their land. We— and I suppose he was including other Magistrates; had the men before us and we gave them— I forget the exact sentence, but three or six months' hard labour for objecting to our riding over their land. Now, if there is one amusement more than another that depends upon the good will of the agricultural community it is hunting. I was shocked, not only by the account of the punishment inflicted—I cannot myself understand how it could be inflicted; I do not think it could be legally inflicted [Hear, hear! from Mr. BALFOUR]; but we have a reckless executive in Ireland who obey no law but their will—but, as I was about to say, I was more shocked by the lightness with which my companion referred to the whole proceeding and the punishment awarded to these men. I can only say of the part of Yorkshire in which I reside that if there were landlords who set themselves to level and destroy the homes of the people as some Irish landlords have, then I should say that all those engaged in agriculture would be fully entitled to take every legal means in their power to prevent these exterminators—the devastators of the country and the burners and levellers of the people's homes—from the amusement of riding over the fields of those whom they were persecuting. I say this, being myself a strong supporter of the sport. What shocked me more in the conversation with the Resident Magistrate, of whom I speak, was not so much what he said as the manner in which he said it. An incident, of which he seemed to be particularly proud, was having escorted a batch of 40 evicted tenants and their sons to Sligo, where they were sentenced to terms of imprisonment with hard labour for 12 or 18 months. I believe this gentleman to be an honourable and naturally a kindly-disposed man, but his mind appeared to me to be utterly corrupted by the brutal system which he had been called upon to carry out for a number of years. The system was bad enough, before the Chief Secretary touched it, but the appointments made to the Magistracy since his time have been more scandalous than before. I was about to allude to Captain Segrave, but I am not quite sure whether his appointment was not made under the present President of the Board of Trade, so I pass that appointment by, and call particular attention to that of Mr. Cecil Roche. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: He was not appointed by me.] The right hon. Gentleman has told the House, however, that Mr. Cecil Roche had been advanced and promoted because he considered that his action in Ireland had deserved it. [Mr. BALFOUR: "Hear, hear."] Who was Mr. Cecil Roche? He was a gentleman who at General Election times was a lecturer and orator engaged on behalf of the Conservative Party. He was engaged by the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union as an itinerant agitator. It seems to me, therefore, that while Houston and Pigott brought their loyalty to market and sold it to the Times, Mr. Cecil Roche did very much the same thing in selling his loyalty to the Chief Secretary. But those qualities which make an administrator hated and create ill-feeling and bitterness among classes in Ireland, seem to me to be the chief recommendations to distinction in the eyes of the Chief Secretary, and a speedy and direct road to promotion and reward. In the mere figures of the convictions recorded before Mr. Cecil Roche I think we have something like a fulfilment of the prophecy held out by Mr. M. Blake, who was Sessional Crown Solicitor for Cork, and who resigned that office on the passing of the Crimes Act. In his letter of resignation he said:— The nature of the procedure under the Crimes Act seems to me to deprive the Crown Prosecutor of any discretion in discriminating between the innocent and guilty—while the tribunal before which he would have to act appears scarcely to have the independence that, in my judgment, ought to characterise any Court intrusted with the liberties of the people. I have not been able to find out the full number of convictions in cases tried before Mr. Cecil Roche under the Crimes Act, but between March of last year and the previous August this Mr. Cecil Roche appears to have heard charges against 90 persons, of whom he convicted 84. These facts are surely significant of the temper of the man. A learned Judge of the High Court has expressed something very like contempt for these Courts. While Captain Plunkett has found a motto suitable for the Irish Constabulary policy of the Chief Secretary, Baron Dowse has found one for the right hon. Gentleman's Coercion Courts. Yesterday he said of them— I am no great admirer of these inferior Courts; it appears to me their motto is, 'I am Sir Oracle, let no dog bark.' Now it will be said that in the hearing of these cases Mr. Cecil Roche had the assistance of another Resident Magistrate; but everybody knows that every Resident Magistrate has to play second fiddle to Mr. Roche, and in one case he openly denounced as too lenient a sentence passed in his presence by the presiding Magistrate, Mr. Kilkelly, who thereupon asked Colonel Turner to relieve him from the duty of sitting with Mr. Roche again. Well, Mr. Roche is promoted, and Mr. Kilkelly is removed to another district. It is impossible to review anything like a considerable proportion of the cases tried before Mr. Cecil Roche, we shall never know what the common people have suffered at the hands of Mr. Roche; but we can gather some idea of it from what has happened in the cases of Members of this House. The wicked severity of Mr. Roche is illustrated by his sentencing the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. Cox) to four months' imprisonment, on the charge of unlawful assembly, in attending a meeting in a proclaimed district and delivering a speech to his own constituents, the main burden of which was a denunciation of crime and outrage. The best comment upon the sentence is that the County Court Judge reduced it to one month's imprisonment as a first-class misdemeanant. At the risk of wearying the Committee to whom I know the reading of extracts is distasteful, I will read some passages from the speech of the hon. Member for Clare, including the incriminating language, and for this speech I ask the Committee to remember the hon. Member was sentenced by Mr. Roche to four months' imprisonment. Here is an extract from the speech delivered to his constituents:— I would implore the young men of Clare, and I wish my voice could reach the ears and hearts of every young man to-night, and this Lisdoonvarna case may point a moral if it cannot adorn a sad tale for them. Let them shun outrages and avoid the tempter to evil deeds as they would shun Satan himself, and if for no holier and higher motive, at least for the selfish motive of their own safety. There are foolish people in the country who think revenge should he wreaked for any petty act of local tyranny. I do not think the common sense of the country will accept their opinions and views against the opinions and views of our great leader, Mr. Parnell, or the greatest statesman of modern times, Mr. Gladstone. Wherever and whenever you meet with such men avoid and shun them, for, believe me, theirs is no good purpose. The louder they boast of their patriotism and what they are prepared to do and dare the more reason have you to shun them, for, believe me, nine out of every ten of such men are in the pay of our enemies. We have now the great Liberal Party of England at our back, with their great leader, Mr. Gladstone; we have the English democracy with us, as will be told to you in a few minutes by Mr. Conybeare. With such allies, nothing can stop or stay our march to liberty, save and except the commission of outrage, which must inevitably drive our allies from our side, and bring joy, hope, and satisfaction to the hearts of the miserable gang of coercionists—the Cullinane Balfour now in office. Hearken, then, to the advice of the great leader who never yet gave wrong counsel or advice: follow the counsel of the veteran leader of the Liberal Party, be guilty of no crime or outrage, follow the open and Constitutional agitation which will certainly bring us to the goal of our long lost right! "Adhere to the doctrines and teachings of the National League—but I forget my friends. Balfour says the League has been proclaimed in Clare. I ask you, is it? [Loud shouts "No!"] I wish Balfour were here to listen to that thundering shout; he would know the value you place on his proclamation. I beseech you all, young and old, to adhere to the Constitutional teachings ^of the National League. Well, these utterances are the crime for which the hon. Member for East Clare was sentenced to four months' imprisonment. Next on the list we come to the treatment of the hon. Member for West Kerry. Mr. Roche sentenced the hon. Member for West Kerry (Mr. E. Harrington) to six months' hard labour for reporting in his own newspaper a speech delivered to his own constituents, and that sentence horrified and disgusted a good many Conservatives and honest Tories, and I believe has done more to throw light on the manner in which the Chief Secretary has the law administered in Ireland than any other sentence passed under the Crimes Act. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin (Mr. T. Harrington), who has had no connection with the paper for years, although by a clerical error his name appeared on the list of proprietors, was for the same offence in January, 1888, sentenced to six weeks' hard labour—an infamous sentence, the appeal against which has been taken to the High Court, without, however, any day having as yet been fixed for the hearing. This is in itself a significant commentary of the High Court on the action of the Chief Secretary from the Magistrate. Mr. W. O'Brien was sentenced by Mr. Roche to six months for alleged conspiracy; and the comment on this sentence by another County Court Judge was the reduction of it to six weeks. There are other cases on the list, but I think I have quoted enough to show what treatment the political opponents of the Chief Secretary have at the hands of Mr. Cecil Roche. I should like to quote what a London Unionist paper says with regard to some of these convictions— To us it appears clear that Mr. Roche, the Magistrate who tried Mr. T. Harrington's case, decided it contrary to the weight of evidence. There is an apparent vindictiveness about this prosecution which is not creditable to the Government. It will be said throughout Ireland, and with good reason, that Mr. T. Harrington has been prosecuted and convicted not because he had any connection with the Kerry Sentinel, but because he is Secretary of the Irish National League. Then the article goes on to say— Even Irish County Court Judges are becoming ashamed of the petty and contemptible prosecutions of Mr. Balfour. Yesterday Judge Morris converted Mr. Sheehy into a first-class misdemeanant, at the same time strongly expressing himself against the infliction of degrading and humiliating punishments on political prisoners. This is how Mr. Cecil Roche has distinguished himself in endeavouring to pass humiliating and degrading sentences on the political opponents of the Chief Secretary, and for this he has got his reward. Now, what sort of example do these gentlemen set, one of whose functions is to suppress the practice of boycotting in Ireland? The hon. Member for West Kerry alluded yesterday to this matter of boycotting on the part of Mr. Cecil Roche. This gentleman was solicited in the usual way for his annual subscription towards Tralee races, but he declined to have anything to do with the matter, and introduced for the first time a political element into these matters. He could not, he said, have his name associated with that of the hon. Member for West Kerry. The original letter of Mr. Cecil Roche, dated July 26th, has been put into my hand, and in this letter Mr. Roche declines a subscription on the ground that he does not feel justified in giving his support, owing to the presence on the Committee of an individual whom it was his painful duty to sentence to a term of imprisonment, and who, in his journal, systematically insulted those engaged in the maintenance of law and order. At the same time, there appears to be a letter from Colonel Turner, in which he says that under ordinary circumstances he would have been glad to subscribe, but as he saw in the list of stewards a person who had been a persistent breaker of the law and a constant traducer of the Royal Irish Constabulary, he must decline to do so. These two men, I say, are setting the example of boycotting to the country. I have always thought that even where a man has been a criminal, that having been convicted and suffered his term of imprisonment, he is to be regarded as having purged himself of his crime. I do not suppose that even Mr. Cecil Roche in his heart of hearts regarded the hon. Member as a criminal. And, now, I should like to give a few samples of the sentences passed by Mr. Cecil Roche. His sentences are the heaviest passed in any of the Coercion Courts in Ireland. In one case Dennis McNamara, of Ennis, convicted of the crime of selling United Ireland, was, on November 26th, 1887, sentenced by Mr. Cecil Roche to seven days' imprisonment. This crime of selling United Ireland appears to have been committed in every part of the country, and yet this man alone appears to have been singled out for prosecution. A month afterwards, for a repetition of the same offence, the man was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour; and not long after that for displaying in the window of his grocer's store a representation of a harp without a crown, and a shamrock with the motto, "God save Ireland" on it, he was brought up before Mr. Cecil Roche again and fined £2. Sir, the device for the display of which this man was fined £2 is to be seen in this Chamber, and, if it were daylight, it could be seen in the stained glass of the windows. If it is a crime to display such a device in Ireland, surely it should also be a crime to do it here. Besides being fined £2, this man was subjected to a course of petty persecution. Policemen were told off to take the names of the people entering his shop, and some were permitted to ransack his little place, take away a part of his stock-in-trade, the object, obviously, being to ruin him in his business. Then a man named Brosnan was sentenced by Mr. Cecil Roche to one month's imprisonment for selling United Ireland. A man named O'Rourke was sentenced to the same term of imprisonment for selling the Cork Herald, and Pat Ferriter was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour for selling United Ireland. There are a number of other cases tried by Mr. Cecil Roche where the sentences were equally atrocious from our point of view. There was the case of Moynahan and Quinlan, who were sent to prison for one month each for "something between a boo and a laugh, in fact a mongrel laugh; "and there is the case of M'Carthy, who was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment for simply refusing to go off the footpath to make way for a policeman. Another man named Sullivan was sent to gaol for three months for "having arms in a proclaimed district," the "arms" consisting of a "heavy leaden bullet," which the man—against whom not a particle of evidence was brought—said he had seen in the road and had picked up for a marble. I could mention many other cases to show that amongst the most abominable and cruel sentences passed by any Resident Magistrate under the Coercion Act are those of Mr. Cecil Roche. But Mr. Cecil Roche has distinguished himself in another way. On a good many occasions after his wearying labours in the Coercion Court, he has taken relaxation in batoning the people. He did that at Miltown Malbay. A number of blacksmiths had been tried, or rather sentenced—for no evidence of conspiracy whatever was given—to imprisonment with hard labour, and a small crowd cheered them. The police charged the crowd, and Mr. Cecil Roche himself joined in the assault, striking the people with his stick. Then, again, on 12st January, 1888, at Dingle, a number of men were sentenced to imprisonment for one month for laughing and groaning at the police on their way to prevent a meeting of the National League. There was the usual termination to a Petty Sessions—a number of people gathered sympathising with the prisoners—the crowd was charged, and with 30 constables, Mr. Cecil Roche cruelly attacked the defenceless people and batoned them mercilessly. Then at Rathmore, on the 11th February, a number of men had been sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour for a trivial and technical assault on the police, and as soon as the business of the Court was over Mr. Cecil Roche retired to the public street and batoned the people. I maintain that this is not only brutalising to the people, but degrading to the administrators of the law. I certainly consider that this gentleman whom the Chief Secretary has advanced and preferred on account of his services "in the cause of law and order in Ireland," is, perhaps, the worst case I could adduce. It is an illustration of the spirit and method of the Chief Secretary, and I shall ask the Committee—though I will not ask it to endorse all I have said in regard to this individual or any other individual—to support me when I move the reduction of this Vote, as a protest against the way in which this system is administered by the Chief Secretary, and against the system itself. I think that all men will in their calmer moments regard this system as one inimical to the partiality and independence of the Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland. In order to test the feeling of the Committee on the question, I will conclude by moving the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £83,062 be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Alfred Pease.)

MR. P. J. POWER (Waterford, E.)

Various instances have been given by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me as to the manner in which the law is administered in Ireland. He has dealt with the action of Mr. Cecil Roche, and he has shown that a state of things prevails in Ireland which very few Members of this House could conceive. So far as I am personally concerned— and I think I may say the same on behalf of my Colleagues in this House, and of hon. Members from Ireland generally—we should welcome heartily the appearance of English gentlemen amongst us, whatever their polities may be.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. P. J. POWER

proceeded: I think if they would only go to see the country, they would better understand the question; but they must not go and stay amongst partisans on either side. I believe that if a gentleman goes there and stays at hotels, he will soon learn for himself more in connection with the Irish Question than he could gain by any amount of reading. Now, the hon. Member for York has done that. In his speech he referred to two cases which were tried before the notorious Cecil Roche. I do not propose to deal with any other cases which come under the notice of that Stipendiary Magistrate for, probably, some of my hon. Friends sitting around me, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Kerry, who has experienced the leniency of that Magistrate, will be better able to say a few words as to his administration of justice. I desire to point out this—that nowadays in Ireland they do not go through the form of reading the Riot Act; they declare a meeting illegal and immediately order the police to baton the people indiscriminately. I have in my hands a case tried by two Magistrates, in which a number of people were accused of unlawful assembly, and that assembly consisted of a demonstration of sympathy with the families of men who had been imprisoned under the Coercion Act. Now, the constables who gave evidence in the case said that no disturbance or disorder of any kind occurred. There was merely a procession of men and carts bearing presents for the families of the imprisoned men. But it was a glaring case in the eyes of the Magistrates, and the result was that two men were sentenced to two months' imprisonment for taking part in the demonstration, and a number of other men got six weeks' hard labour for the same so-called offence. It may be ancient history, but I should like again to draw the attention of the Committee to the action of one of the principal Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland who administered so-called justice in Cork and the adjoining counties. Every person interested in our country is, I think, prepared to admit that it is absolutely necessary, if the country is to be prosperous, that respect for law and order should exist, but we say that if you want to have order in any community, the first thing to do is to appoint capable and impartial men to administer just and even-handed law. The right hon. Gentleman when he carried his Coercion Bill through the House of Commons assured hon. Members that he had no intention whatever of interfering with the liberty of the press, but my hon. Friend the Member for the City of York has pointed out case after case in which newsvendors have been imprisoned for long terms of hard labour for selling papers which can be sold with impunity on this side of St. George's Channel. Even to-night, on my road down to the House, I bought a copy of United Ireland, which contained reports of meetings of suppressed branches of the National League. The vendor of that paper to me will certainly not be prosecuted, but people selling a copy of the same paper in Ireland are subject to prosecution. But now I wish to call attention to the case of Captain Segrave. I may be told that Captain Segrave's case is still under consideration, but may I point out that there are scores of people in Ireland who are suffering long terms of imprisonment, many with hard labour, and who have been sentenced by benches of Magistrates on which this gentleman occupied the principal position? Unfortunately we hear no expression of hope from hon. Gentlemen opposite that the persons who have been so sentenced shall be set at liberty. One of the most disastrous occurrences in Ireland was that at Mitchelstown, and at the inquest which was held in connection with it, touching the murder of the three people who lost their lives on that occasion, Captain Segrave was called as a witness, and I propose now to quote the account which this gentleman gave of himself on oath, and I will then ask the House whether they expect the people of Ireland or of any other country to respect the law which is administered by a gentle- man of that description. Captain Segrave was first asked—" Where did you get your legal training for the position of Stipendiary Magistrate?" and he replied that he had no legal training for that position. Then he was asked, "Where did you get your military training?" His answer was, "In South Africa," and my hon. Friend who was cross-examining him on that occasion very properly remarked, "And a good place, too, to teach men to deal with an Irish crowd." It appears there was a little irony in that remark, for it was about that time that the Prime Minister had shown his good taste by speaking of the Irish as a nation of Hottentots, and therefore Africa must have been a good place to which to send a Stipendiary Magistrate in order to teach him how to deal with Hottentots. The examination continued:— Q. Did you ever get a commission in the Army? A. No.—Q. Did you try? A. I did. —Q. Did you fail? I did.—Q. Did you try once more? A. I tried once more for the preliminary examination. I passed the second time.— Q. Did you try again for the Commission? A. I did.—Q. Did you fail? A. I did, but not very ignominiously.—Q How long after that did you go to the Cape? A. Not long after. I went into the Frontier Mounted Police there. I remained there a little over three years, and then left. I left the force a private. They did not seem to appreciate service there, for promotion was not rapid.—Q. Would a policeman be guilty of dereliction of his duty if he did not give your message to the County Inspector? A. I do not know. I suppose he would.—Q. Then you don't know anything about constabulary law? A. No.— Q. Had you the command of the constabulary that day? A. Yes. I was in command on that day.—Q. Did you ever see the Police Code? A. No.—Q. Were you ignorant of the instructions in the Code as to firing? A. Yes; I was. Now, Mr. Courtney, let me point out to the Committee that this is not the description given by one of us of this Magistrate. It is a description which he gave of himself upon oath, and when hon. Gentlemen talk to us about our want of respect for law and order in Ireland, I ask them whether they themselves could respect law if it were administered by men of this description, and whether they would think of insulting the people of this country by allowing such men to administer the English law. I could give instance after instance of the doings of this gentleman, but I shall be followed by some of my hon. friends, who have had more experience of the way in which coercion is administered in Ireland, and to them I will leave the duty of further dealing with this topic. Unfortunately the Stipendiary Magistrates have not only our liberty in their hands, but they have likewise the levying of the taxes. Hon. Members may not agree with that, but I say it is so, because they get up riots and then bring down the police and military at enormous expense to the people, without consulting the local Magistrates. I could give a case which occurred in the city of Waterford in which the Stipendiary Magistrates disregarded the views of the entire Bench of local Magistrates—of Conservatives as well as of Liberals—who wished that a certain demonstration should be allowed to continue, as it always had been allowed —namely, a celebration in honour of the Manchester Martyrs. But the Stipendiary Magistrates disregarded the unanimous vote of the local Magistrates, and insisted that if a meeting were held it should be broken up. What was the result? The meeting was held, and a violent collision took place between the people and the police. Now, in the Debate which took place yesterday, the Chief Secretary made allusion to the trial which took place at Carrick-on-Suir, in which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork was concerned, and he gave the House the impression that my hon. Friend deliberately left the Court before the proceedings terminated. Now, I was present on that occasion, and I say that the course which was taken was brought about by the conduct of the Resident Magistrates, and was not pre-conceived or prearranged in any way. In the first instance, as we approached the Court we found that a large cordon of police had been drawn across the street, and these men placed their bayonets against our breasts as we approached them. My hon. Friend was grossly assaulted. Several times he was thrust back with the butt-end of muskets, while the hon. Member for Long ford, who was attending in his legal capacity to defend the hon. Member for North-East Cork, was also assaulted in a most aggravated form. At last we got into the Court, where the two Removables were sitting. The Court was by no means an open one, and the public were excluded. A lady, the sister of the late John Mandeville, who was sent to an early grave by the action of the Government, sought admission, but I suppose as it was known she was in sympathy with my hon. Friend she was refused the right to enter, and it was not until my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork himself went out of the Court and insisted on her admission that she was allowed to enter. What caused my hon. Friend to leave the Court was this. A slight demonstration took place in the gallery; I have heard demonstrations more pronounced at the New Law Courts in London. The Stipendiary Magistrates at once ordered the galleries to be cleared. My hon. Friend the Member for Long ford asked the people not to make any further demonstration, and assured the Bench that if they were allowed to remain they would accede to his request. But it was of no use. The Stipendiary Magistrates insisted on the galleries being cleared. My hon. Friend said:— If this is not to be an open Court, and if the people are to be batomed out of the galleries, then I also will leave with them. And I believe I never saw a more pronounced specimen of incapacity on the part of the Magistrates than that I witnessed on that occasion, for my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork, in spite of the order of the Magistrates, which somehow was not conveyed to the police, walked quietly away, and soon afterwards left the town. The Magistrates at once issued a warrant for the arrest of my hon. Friend, and then adjourned the Court until the following day. In that little town—in this country you would only call it a village—there were 180 armed policemen, and the Stipendiary Magistrates, finding they could not secure his arrest, gave orders for 150 additional policemen and two companies of military to be drafted into the town on the following morning. What was the result? The Court sat the next morning. The Court House was surrounded by this large force of police and military. My hon. Friend's name was called inside and outside the Court. At that time he was many miles away on his road to Manchester to address the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. But what I wish to point out more particu- larly is that this little community was put to great expense by the action of the Stipendiary Magistrates, and this, I think, justifies my assertion that the Magistrates not only have the lives and liberties of the people in their hands, but they have also the imposing of taxes upon them. I wish further to point out that the present coercion is aimed not at crime and criminals, but at political opponents and at political organisations, and its main objects are to break down organisations which have been found to be absolutely necessary for the preservation of the lives of the people. Now, I should like to read to this Committee a statement made by the County Court Judge at Waterford. In addressing the Grand Jury at Quarter Sessions the learned Judge said: I have examined the records of the past year, and I am glad to be able to tell you, as you will be glad to hear, that the amount of crime in the county and city of Waterford investigated in this Court during the year 1887 is very light—I may say insignificant. It consists of only 15 cases of the ordinary nature which require no comment from me, and considering that the population of the county and the city at the last census was 112,768, the number of 15 cases may reasonably be called small. But, gentlemen," added the learned Judge, "you have no reason to pride your selves in this county on being exceptionally free from crime. I am, as you are aware, County Court Judge for two other counties, Cavan and Leitrim, and I am sorry to tell you that the record in Waterford, light as it is, is the heaviest of the three. In Cavan, with a population of 129,000 people, there were only 14 cases; while in Leitrim, with a population of 89,000, I h-id only 11 cases returned for trial. The total of the three counties is 40 cases, and it may be observed that the cases returned for trial to Quarter Sessions do not represent the criminal state of the county. I have also obtained the number of cases returned for trial to the Assizes of each county, and I find they are fully as"——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I do not see how that is connected with this Vote.

MR. P. J. POWER

I am endeavouring to connect it in this way: I wish to prove that there is little or no crime in the county, but that, owing to the representations of these Stipendiary Magistrates that there is a good deal of crime, we are deprived of the ordinary privileges of a Constitutional people. I will not much longer dilate upon this subject, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that, owing to the representations of these Stipendiary Magistrates, many people who are returned for trial by these Magistrates are drafted to Belfast and elsewhere to be tried. I wish to prove that there is absolutely no need for the services of the Stipendiary Magistrates. So far from repressing crime, they stimulate it. I should like to quote some further remarks by this County Court Judge with regard to how the juries do their duty. He said— I have made an examination of the criminal statistics of England and Scotland, and I find, strange to say, that the rate of convictions to committals in Waterford bears exactly the same proportion as it does in England and Wale, while in Leitrim the percentage of convictions as compared with committals is 82, and that is a greater percentage than is to be found in any part of Great Britain. Owing to the representations of the Stipendiary Magistrates we have been called upon in Waterford to pay a sum of over £800 for special police purposes. Now the principal Stipendiary Magistrate in my district is Captain Slack, one of the best men to ride to hounds in the South of Ireland, and that is his principal qualification for the post he holds. How does he use the extra police which, owing to his representations, are drafted into this part of the country? Many hon. Gentlemen, I know, are fond of the sport of foxhunting, but they wish to enjoy it in the ordinary way with the concurrence of the farmers and the people. But the Stipendiary Magistrates in my part of the country carry on their sport only through the assistance of these extra police, and there has hardly been a hunt lately in that part which was not followed by the police on outside cars. I think very few hon. Gentlemen sitting in this House would care to carry on their sport under such humiliating conditions. They would prefer to hunt over the land with the concurrence of the farmers and of the people. I may add that the Marquess of Waterford has never consented to hunt under these humiliating circumstances. It is only since he left, and since these Stipendiary Magistrates have been left to themselves that the hunting has been of this nature. In conclusion, allow me to say in regard to the suggestion which is often made, that the same law prevails in England as in Ireland, that I foresee one great difficulty with which we shall have to contend when we obtain the management of our own affairs, and that difficulty is that we shall have to wean the people from the idea that the law is not even-handed, for owing to the administration of these Stipendiary Magistrates no one can possibly believe that justice is even-handed in Ireland.

MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)

I desire to state to the House not mere theory, but, as far as I am able to do so quietly, I desire to describe what I myself have seen in Ireland, and I do so because one of the difficulties we are in in this House is this, that whenever any facts are stated or are contained in a question asked from these Benches, the answer we are invariably met with is, "According to my information it is not so." What that information is we can never ascertain, and we can, therefore, only state here over and over again, upon our honour as English gentlemen and as Members of this House, that which is within our knowledge. We believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is often deluded by the information given him, and that he publishes to the country reports which are absolutely false. This is not a wholly financial question which we are discussing; it involves an important principle connected with the system of Resident Magistrates, who are, after all, a necessary part of a system which is bad as bad can be. I am not prepared to find so much fault as some people with the Government for having Resident or Removable Magistrates; they could not get on without them. Of course, if they were carrying on Constitutional Government they would not need such weapons as these. Let us look a little at the details of this Estimate. I presume we are dealing with the items under letters D, E, F, G, and H on page 311 of the Estimates. If so, we are in this position. We have, first, Executive officers, then we have Magistrates, and both for the Executive officers and the Magistrates you are asking not only salaries and incidental expenses, but you demand also travelling expenses for Magistrates whom you call Resident Magistrates, and who naturally would not be expected to need much in the way of travelling expenses. But, as a fact, they are not Resident Magistrates; they are Magistrates sent about from one part of the country to another for the special purpose of turning the regular, the recognised, and the legally appointed Magistrates out of their seats, in order that they may do the special work for which they are appointed, and for which they are supposed to be qualified. Why do the Government send the men up and down the country in this fashion? Why do they take two gentlemen far away from their homes to do this work? Why do they not trust it to the people on the spot? If it is because they must have men of superior capacity and with a most profound knowledge of the law, persons well acquainted with the natures, feelings, and idiosyncracies of the people amongst whom they live—if that is the reason for the appointment of these Magistrates then we can understand the action of the Government. But let us look at the qualifications of these men. There are 76 of these officials. Five of them are described as practising barristers, how much practice they ever had I do not know. In addition to that six others have been called to the bar; that they may well have been and not have got much farther. At any rate, I will assume that they got some knowledge of law before being called to the bar. Now these 11 are all out of the 76 who can be said to have had any definite and distinct legal training for this work for which they are supposed to be so specially fitted as to justify their being sent rampaging up and down the country, and turning the proper Magistrates out of their seats. 13 others of these Magistrates had been in the Commission of the Peace. Two of them had modestly fitted themselves for this work by having had previously no vocation at all, three had been specially prepared by occupying positions in connection with the collection of taxes, 27 were broken down failures from the Army, Navy, and Militia, and 22 had been in the Constabulary, thus making 49 militiamen, policemen, soldiers, and sailors.

ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne)

Do not say sailors.

MR. WADDY

I am not at all surprised to hear an hon. and gallant Member who is such an ornament to his profession say, in a piteous and beseeching way, "not sailors." Of course, they are not such sailors as he commanded; they are the failures. Yet this principle of selection is still going on. I find on page 23 there is a very singular entry. It is— Allowance to four County Inspectors at head-quarters of Divisional Commissioners, £50 per annum each, and two ditto at 10s. per day each when acting as Divisional Magistrates in the Northern and Western Divisions. This is not very clear, but it is not the policy of the Government to make these things clear. All I can say is that there exists a disgraceful system which must produce disgraceful results. We know beyond all possibility of doubt that the travesty of justice which takes place in this country of Ireland is simply and absolutely disgraceful. It is quite possible that some of these Magistrates desire to do what is right and proper, but it is difficult to have faith in some of them. What took place at Kilkeel only the other day? There had been a series of evictions carried out in the immediate neighbourhood, and a summons had been issued—rightly, I dare say—by the police against those who had been defending their houses. Well, some of the people imagined that they had ground of complaint against the police, and they consequently applied to two Magistrates to issue a summons. The application was refused, one of the Magistrates saying he was present at the time the offence was alleged to have been committed; he had as much to do with it as anybody. He could scarcely be expected to issue a summons against persons who had been acting with him. He, therefore, suggested that the application should be made to another Magistrate. This was done, and the summonses obtained. But when they came on for hearing the police did not attend. Of course, had an Irish Member of Parliament so acted he would have been arrested. But with the police such conduct did not matter. The cases stood over, and at the adjourned hearing two Resident Magistrates put in an appearance, presumably on the ground that the local justices were not qualified to or justified in trying offences under the Crimes Act. When the summonses came on a solicitor stood up and said he had instructions from Dublin Castle to protest against the cases being gone into. He was asked upon what ground, and he exclaimed, "What! put the Constabulary on their trial? It is monstrous and ought not to be allowed." That reason, however, did not seem quite satisfactory even to a Resident Magistrate, and accordingly an effort was made to find another. The summons itself, which was legally issued and properly signed, was examined, and the presiding Magistrate said, "It ought to have been obtained in this Court." The explanation was tendered that it was applied for, but on the suggestion of one of the Magistrates the application was withdrawn and made in another Court. Yet the Resident Magistrate pretended to believe that this afforded a sufficient reason for not calling on the constabulary to answer the charge. He said he should dismiss the summons. It was pointed out that he must give the grounds for dismissal, but he declined to do that, and simply wrote upon the summons the words, "No rule "or "No order." Not even a witness was sworn, nor was the prosecuting counsel heard. Is that even-handed justice? Now it appears to me that the ground of complaint against the police was a perfectly good and satisfactory one. It was this, that at the scene of the evictions there were two women living, both bearing the same surname, and the battering ram was used by the police on the door of the wrong woman's house. She naturally objected and asked for the summons. If that had been heard it may have been that the Magistrate would have deemed a small fine sufficient, or even the payment of the damage actually done, but the Court refused to hear the summons, and I say that refusal was a denial of justice which no lawyer, and indeed no man of sense and honesty will attempt to defend. Now that is not a solitary case, such things occur in every direction. I have stated the facts calmly and deliberately and without colouring, and I invite an answer. These people were poor people and they could not afford to appeal. You are doing in Ireland that which is most fatal to be done in any country. You may tyrannise over people and yet not do a fatal wrong, but the one thing which must be fatal to that peace between those two countries is this: if you once saturate the people of Ireland with a conviction, that not only you do not care for them, but that you deliberately poison the fountains of justice and refuse them their ordinary rights in a Court of Justice, it will be impossible to preserve peace. By giving the people cause to distrust your administration of justice—as I am sorry to say you are doingf— by this system of appointing Resident Magistrates who are utterly unfit for the work, but who are at your beck and call, and do not hesitate to say openly in Court that they are specially sent to try particular cases—you are preparing for yourselves or for others a harvest of hatred which may become far more like a revolution than anything which, thank God, we have seen during the last 20 years.

* MR. P. J. O'BRIEN (Tipperary, N.)

On a recent occasion I attempted to bring under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Ireland a case of cruelty, hardship, and injustice perpetrated on one of my constituents by a gentleman who, unfortunately for them, occupied a position of Resident Magistrate; and on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman gave a distinct denial of the facts I laid before him. I now intend, Mr. Courtney, to go more fully into the case, in the hope that I may still be able to get some redress. The case I refer to is one which was tried before Colonel Waring and Mr. Meldon at Cloughjordan, County Tipperary, and it was a charge against a trader named O'Reilly, who was charged with using violence and intimidation towards one Thomas Fox, an emergency bailiff and caretaker, who was at the time in charge of a farm lately in the occupation of Mrs. Angelina Moroney and others. Mr. George Bolton, who generally takes charge of prosecutions in this county, was present, and in his statement on behalf of the Crown he said— O'Reilly was manager of his father's public-house, had been for some time, and had entire control of the business. He continued:— When this man Fox went into the shop he called him a blackguard and a bailiff, and shoved him from the house, using a considerable amount of violence. I am very sorry that this should have occurred, as this has been in the past a most peaceable district. In fact, the most peaceable portion of the county. But this is no excuse for the conduct of the defendant. John Fox was then examined and deposed:— I am a Sheriff's bailiff; I reside at Thurles; I was at Coolnagown farm on the 21st May, when the Sheriff got possession, and I was placed there as caretaker; I remained there until the 5th July, on which day I came into Cloughjordan to make purchases; I went into the public-house of Michael O'Reilly; I asked him for a bottle of porter; 'I am engaged,' said he, 'call again in an hour's time; I went away then and returned in an hour's time" he was then standing behind the counter; I asked him for a bottle of porter, he said, 'What brought you in here, you scam; d you blackguard, you bailiff?' he called me a ballad singer, too.—Mr. Nolan: May be you are a ballad singer.—Witness (continuing): He came from behind the counter and caught me by the breast and shoved me out; he then gave me two boxes of his clinched fist on the breast; I am not aware of any cause for this except that I am a Sheriff's bailiff and acting as caretaker over those lands; Constable Farrell was in the shop looking on; I then went to the police barrack; the defendant followed me over; he repeated the names again which he called me in the shop, and said if ever he caught me there again he would kick me out; I was never a ballad singer; I earn my living honestly. —Mr. Nolan: That is a slander on the fraternity of ballad singers. Fox was then cross-examined by Mr. Nolan, solicitor for the defence, and I think I cannot do better than quote the newspaper report. He said:— I am living in this locality since the 21st May, and no person molested me, except the shopkeepers who insulted me. It is a peaceable and respectable locality. I am Sheriff's bailiff for eight years; I was a basket-maker up to that; I was not in jail.—Mr. Nolan: Did I not see you in the dock myself? You did, I was there for drunkenness, I swear that I was not drunk more than five times; I was in Nenagh jail several times; I was never in Clonmel jail; it is ten years since I was in jail; I was fined 6s. 6d. in Dundrum for being drunk; the Sheriff brought me here; I never spoke to Mr. O'Reilly in my life until the 5th June; he was leaving the shop with a book in his hand; when I left Mr. O'Reilly's I did not go into another public-house during the hour; it was not to get up the prosecution against him I went in; I went there for porter; my demeanour was not offensive to him.—Mr. Nolan: Did he not say you had a great deal of impertinence to address him the way you did while he was engaged transacting business with a commercial gentleman? On my oath he did not.—Witness (continuing): He said that if there was nobody else to do away with me he would. There was a policeman there.—Mr. Bolton (re-examined): I went into two other houses that day for tobacco; I tendered the money for the goods and they refused supplying me.—Mr. Nolan: My client is not charged with conspiracy.—To Mr, Nolan: —I got no porter that day in town.—On your solemn oath now did you? I do not want to catch you. I did, I got one pint of porter at the public-house next the barrack. It was in the evening. This concluded his examination, and Constable Patrick Farrell was next examined by Mr. Bolton. He said:— I am a constable in the R.I.C. stationed at Cloughjordan. He then handed in two copies of the Dublin Gazette, one the 23rd July, '87, and the other the 16th July, '87, containing the proclamation of the County Tipperary and notice thereof under the Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, '87. I was in O'Reilly's public-house on duty on the 5th June; I saw John Fox going in there: I saw Michael O'Reilly in the house; he was outside the counter to the best of my recollection; Fox asked for a bottle of stout, but did not get it; he asked Michael O'Reilly for the stout. Mr. O'Reilly put his two hands on his shoulders, and told him to leave the shop, that he was a scamp or a bailiff, or something like that, and that he was interfering with his business. Fox was then quietly shored out, and I followed him to the door. Mr. O'Reilly seemed to be excited; I followed him to the door and saw him go in the direction of the barrrck. In my opinion he asked for the porter in a rather peremptory tone. There was nothing else disorderly in Fox's conduct.—To Mr. Nolan: It was about five o'clock p.m., when Fox came in, and he demanded to get porter in a peremptory manner. I would not ask it the same way myself. It would excite a man the way he asked it; Mr. O'Reilly did nothing, only put his hand on his shoulder and ordered him out; I was stationed at Thurles and I know Fox's character, which is a bad one; I heard him gay that Mr. O'Reilly came at him like a lion. There is not one word of truth in that; he did not strike him; he did not make use of the words—' I will do away with you,' which is unknown to me. Sergeant Shumacker was next examined, and he deposed:— I am stationed at Thurles; on the 5th June Fox came to the barrack to make a complaint; O'Reilly followed him and said he was a scamp, a blackguard, and a ballad singer.—To Mr. Nolan: I do not know about his being a bad character; I found him in company with a bad character woman one night when I was stationed at Thurles; he was often up for drunkenness; Mr. O'Reilly came to the barrack to complain of his conduct. Therefore the evidence of the prosecutor in this case was most distinctly contradicted by the testimony of the police. But, in addition to that, we have the evidence for the defence, for Mr. William O'Meara, Toomavara, was examined by Mr. Nolan, and deposed:— I was in Mr. O'Reilly's public-house on the 5th June; he (Mr. O'Reilly)) was transacting business with a commercial man, when Fox came in and asked for porter in an authoritative manner; Mr. O'Reilly told him he was engaged; Fox gave Mr. O'Reilly some back answer, and he (Mr. O'Reilly) pushed him out; I saw Fox go to the barrack; I did not hear Mr. O'Reilly say he would do away with Fox before he shoved him out. The Magistrates retired to consider their decision, and after a short absence returned to Court, when Major Waring said:— We take into account the peaceable condition of the district, and will require the defendant to give bail, himself in £40, and two sureties in £20 each, or in default one month's imprisonment. The consequence was, Mr. Courtney, that this unfortunate man, who was the only person in charge of the establishment at the time, his aged father being very sick, had to decide whether he would go to gaol, and shut up the shop with a probable result of bankruptcy, or whether he would give bail. He gave the bail, and I now ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having heard the true facts which I have narrated, and what I believe to be a verbatim report of what occurred at the hearing, he will give his attention to the case, and take from this unfortunate man the stigma of having had to give bail when he had committed no offence whatsoever? Before I sit down, I wish to illustrate still further the class of gentlemen who act as Resident Magistrates. The circumstance I now desire to bring under the attention of the Committee occurred in the town of Nenagh, where two priests were charged before the Removable Magistrates under circumstances which naturally excited intense indignation in the district. The town, on the occasion of the trial, was crowded with people from the surrounding districts. It so happened that as usual the worst possible man was put in charge of the Constabulary on that occasion. Major Waring was placed in authority, and I propose to endeavour to describe his conduct on that day. He was observed riding up and down the town from early morning, trying to find out some excuse for batoning the people. Eventually, in the evening, when he found that the conduct of the people afforded him no opportunity of assaulting them, he detailed a force of cavalry, and ordered them to parade up and down the roadway, thereby driving all the people on to the footpaths, and while they were crowded on the footways, he (Major Waring) gave orders to the Lancers to charge on to the defenceless people, and had they not taken refuge in the shops adjacent bloodshed, if not murder, would have been the result. This, Sir, is the conduct of one of the men in whose hands the Government place the lives and liberties of our people. It is only natural that such conduct should excite general indignation, and I have brought this case before the Committee, in the hope that it will have some effect upon the Chief Secretary, and influence him to relieve Mr. O'Reilly from this injustice done him—as also to modify his general course of action, namely, oppression of the Irish people.

* MR. H. J. WILSON (Holmfirth, W. E., Yorkshire)

I wish to state one or two things that have come under my observation in Ireland. I was in Ireland at the time my hon. Friend the Member for North Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) was tried, and, without going into the details of the charge against him, I may say he was charged with conspiracy, and, among other things, evidence was given of meeting his friends, and it was suggested by a policeman who had been looking through a window at the time, that the hon. Gentleman appeared to be taking tea with some of his constituents. I believe the hon. Member had given advice to his constituents, such as, I hope, I should have the courage to give to mine under similar circumstances. But the particular point to which I wish to direct attention is, that the constable who gave the evidence read from a small bit of paper the names of the persons who, he said, were present at one of the meetings the hon. Member had addressed, and when asked whether he made that list out at the time he stated he had not. He was then asked when did he put the names on the paper, and he said on the previous evening. When asked what he had copied it from, he said from his book. Where was his book? was the question next put to him, and be replied, it was at the barracks. An appeal was then made to the Bench that the constable should be ordered to produce the book, and the Bench directed that it should be produced on the following day. When the next morning came, and the book was called for, the County Inspector came forward and said he had received a telegram from Dublin Castle stating that the book was not to be produced. Now, I have no great knowledge of the law; I have not specially studied it; but I know something of the practice of the Borough Bench of Sheffield, on which I have the honour to have a seat, and I have also consulted persons of experience in this country, and I have found no one who has any idea of the possibility of such a thing occurring in England, as that a Bench of Magistrates should order a book to be produced and that it should be refused by orders from any authority. Though, of course, in this case, where the Magistrates were removable by the authorities at Dublin Castle it may easily be understood that they would not feel inclined to disobey the orders of their superiors. But I ask what would any Bench of Magistrates in England say if they were dealt with in a similar manner, no matter where the order came from? I have looked at one or two of the manuals that have been published for the use of police officers, and I find that in the manual written by Major Bicknell and which is very extensively used by the police, it is stated that— If a constable refers to his notes in the witness box, it is competent to the prisoner's counsel to examine the note-book and cross-examine him on its contents. Now, I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether such a procedure as I have described is justified by the Code in use among the Irish police as to which I have already vainly endeavoured to obtain information from him? If that be the case we ought to know it. I asked Mr. Wellington Colomb, who is a high authority in Dublin Castle, whether this alleged right on the part of the Irish Executive had ever been brought before the higher courts, and he told me he was no: aware that it had, and, therefore, was unable to refer me to anything of the kind; but, he added, it would be exceedingly inconvenient for the Executive to produce such books. No doubt it would; but, I said, in England we do not consider the convenience of the Executive; we only consider what is just to the accused. I wish to mention another matter, and would remind the Committee that a straw will show how the wind blows. I allude to the way in which the Courts in Ireland are arranged. The police stand in a row, with their helmets on, between the Bench and Counsel, and the people, who, although deeply interested spectators, are almost blotted from sight and almost equally cut off from sound—a thing which we in this country would he very sorry to see. I may also point out that there is in this Vote a very large sum charged for the travelling expenses of the Resident Magistrates. No less than £17,000 is put down under this head, one item of £8,200 being for travelling allowances in lieu of forage, and the other £8,800 for travelling and personal expenses. It seems to me that this is a large sum of money for these gentlemen to spend in running about the country, and as I cannot understand it, I should like to have some information from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as to why these charges have run up so enormously. I find that though the salaries have actually fallen since 1886–7 from £43,000 to about £40,000, and the allowance in lieu of forage remains the same, the charge for travelling and personal expenses has increased from £4,500 to £8,800. I should be glad of an explanation of this. Besides the cost, look at the enormous waste of time that must take place while these Magistrates are racing up and down the country. I find Mr. Irwin, R.M., who is chiefly engaged about Limerick and Clare, going off by Cork and Bandon, 109 miles, to Ballinspittle, and then back again 159 miles to Miltown Malbay, and then back to Cork again. Then there is Mr. Cecil Roche. In 1886 he was making violent partisan speeches in the constituency in which I live. Now he i8 dispensing what is called "justice" in Ireland. I trace him travelling from Castleisland to Ennis, and afterwards hack again to Killarney. Each of these journies is rather more than 100 miles, which is not serious on a good English railway, but the trains are so timed on those Irish lines that each of those journies would occupy from 8 in the morning till 5 or 6 at night, and thus he must spend three days to do one day's duty. This seems to show bad organisation and arrangement. A great deal of the time so spent might be economised, and if this were done a smaller number of Magistrates would suffice. Of course, the expenditure and loss of time on the part of the Magistrates also to a considerable extent applies to the police. I do not know how many constables have to attend upon the Resident Magistrates when they travel; but I remember when I was at Ballinasloe seeing a Resident Magistrate there attended by a little guard of honour of the constabulary, one man taking his hat box, and another his trunk, while others stood admiringly round the door as he entered the omnibus. If, therefore, all these expenses were added together they would make a very considerable sum. I will, however, minimise my remarks. [Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.] I shall not bring my remarks to a close because of those cheers, which would rather induce me to go on. [Cries of "Go on" from below the Opposition Gangway.] I do not wish to go on. All I will say in conclusion is that, I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, first, as to why and how, if the law be the same in the two countries, a telegram from Dublin Castle privileges a note-book and prevents its being produced; and, secondly, why the Resident Magistrates do not stay and administer the law in their own districts instead of running about all over the country at an immense cost to the taxpayers?

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has asked for information on two specific points and with regard to one of those points—namely, the travelling expenses of the Resident Magistrates, I think the same point was taken up by the hon. Member for Lincolnshire, and I hope to be able to offer explanations which, if not wholly satisfactory to them, at any rate ought to satisfy the Committee. A criticism was passed by the hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction of the Vote on the fact that under the present system in Ireland executive and judicial functions are vested in the same individual. Now, it is the particular desire of the Government to prevent in any case the same Magistrate having to carry out both official and judicial functions in respect of one transaction, and in order to effect that object it may obviously be necessary to bring into the district of one Resident Magistrate another Resident Magistrate who has had nothing to do with the case on which he is asked to adjudicate.

An hon. MEMBER: No.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Well, it is a general rule. Of course, the Magistrate who is brought in from the outside has to travel, and he sometimes has to travel by branch lines, a fact of which complaint is made on the ground of the length of time consumed. The other point made by the hon. Member had reference to proceedings of which he appears to have been an eye-witness on the occasion of a trial, proceedings which he has said are without example in this country. How, what were those proceedings? A certain public document was regarded as privileged, and was not therefore produced in Court.

MR. E. HARRINGTON

No, no; it was not a public document, but the policeman's notes about the case.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The report which appeared in the Freeman's Journal states that Mr. Carson said he found that those books were confidential documents for the use of the superior officer, and were therefore privileged.

MR. LEAMY

What was the date?

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

What does it matter about the date? It is a report of the particular case to which attention has been directed and appeared in the Freeman's Journal.

MR. LEAMY

Read the whole report then.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Does the hon. Gentleman really expect me to follow the example of the hon. Member who sits near him and read the whole of this report?

MR. LEAMY

Yes; I expect you to read the whole of it.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order; the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to interrupt. He must reserve what observations he has to make until he addresses the Committee.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. J. Wilson) gave me no notice that he intended to call attention to this matter, and when it was referred to I immediately endeavoured to obtain the best information in my power, and I believe the information I have obtained refers to the case which was alluded to by the hon. Gentleman. As I have stated the report appeared in the Freeman's' Journal, and the words were that Mr. Carson said he found that those books were privileged documents.

MR. LEAMY

You are only stating what Mr. Carson said.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That was the contention of counsel in the case, and——

MR. LEAMY

I rise to a point of order. Is it not a fact that——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. LEAMY

I rise to order.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! the hon. Gentleman is quite under a misapprehension as to what is a point of order. It is not a point of order to correct a statement made in the course of debate. The hon. Gentleman must reserve what he has to say until the proper time.

MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)

I wish to ask you, Sir, whether, when an hon. Member rises in his place and says he wishes to speak to a point of order, he is not entitled to state what that point of order is before you stop him?

THE CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Gentleman says I have misapprehended what he rose for, that is so.

MR. W. REDMOND

The hon. Gentleman has not raised the point yet.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I can only say on the question of whether an hon. Member can rise on the plea of order whenever he wishes to correct a statement which he deems to be inaccurate, that if I were to adopt that practice, then I should be so constantly rising to points of order that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be able to get through many of their speeches without interruption. Turning again to the point we were discussing before the hon. Member interposed, I will read not merely the remark of Mr. Carson but that which precedes it in the Freeman's Journal, which is to the effect that the police constable was recalled and cross-examined as to the notes he took on the night Mr. O'Kelly was at the place mentioned and asked to produce his note-book. Mr. Carson objected that this was a confidential document, the entries in which were made for his superior officers, and that it was therefore privileged. Now, this is an incident which the hon. Gentleman opposite thinks could only happen in Ireland and for which there is no precedent. The hon. Gentleman is clearly deriving his legal knowledge from what happens on the Sheffield bench—doubtless an excellent though narrow legal school—but I can assure him that for official documents to be regarded as privileged is a perfectly familiar practice in the English Courts.

* MR. H. J. WILSON

But that does not extend to a policeman's pocket-book.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

So much for the two points dealt with by the hon. Gentleman. I now pass to the most important speech in this debate. I refer to the speech delivered by the hon. Member for York (Mr. A. Pease) who moved the Amendment for the reduction of this Vote. Although that speech was delivered to an almost empty House the hon. Gentleman went into a great many important and interesting circumstances with which it will be proper that I should attempt to deal in some detail. The hon Gentleman appears to have derived his impressions as to the Magistrates of Ireland from the speech of a certain Judge Fletcher delivered in the year 1814. I have not the least doubt that that learned Judge made remarks which were extremely appropriate to the occasion, but they are certainly not appropriate to a Vote for the Irish Resident Magistrates at the present day, inasmuch as they were delivered more than 70 years ago, before the system of Resident Magistrates was invented, I think the hon. Gentleman should have made himself better acquainted with the institution he attacks, before quoting the remarks made by a Judge who lived in the year 1814. The hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, perfectly bonâ fide in relating the anecdotes he has given to the Committee; but I think he went to Ireland in a very credulous spirit The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have taken sufficient pains to sift the evidence, and that is all the more serious, when I reflect on the kind of charges he has hurled against the Magistrates. The hon. Gentle man's manner was as quiet as that of any speaker I have ever heard in this House, but his language was as violent as any I ever listened to. There is hardly any crime of which he did not accuse the Resident Magistrates.

* MR. A. PEASE

I directly repudiated from the beginning to the end of my speech that the attack I made was against the whole body. I attacked the system under which they are appointed and the manner in which it is worked by the Chief Secretary.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I fully acquit the hon. Gentleman of the charge of attacking the whole body, but he did undoubtedly hurl charges against members of that body. He accused them of grossly corrupt administration of justice, and I say that that is not an accusation to be lightly made against a judicial body, and that the hon. Gentleman ought to make himself better acquainted with the facts before coming here to prefer such a charge. He stated that these Magistrates acted on suggestions from the central Government, and upon intimations received from Dublin Castle. Sir, not only is that charge absolutely false [cries of "Oh," from the Opposition Benches]—I say, absolutely false, but the hon. Gentleman had not a particle of evidence in support of it [renewed cries of "Oh!") not a single particle, I say that charges of this kind, which involve not merely the honour of the Resident Magistrates, but the honour of every official connected with the Government of Ireland, is not one that ought to be made lightly by one who occupies the position of the hon. Member. There are, no doubt, other hon. Members of this House from whom accusations of this kind fall so glibly that when making them they hardly realise the gravity of what they allege; but I am unwilling to see the hon. Member associating himself with those to whom I refer, or adopting the reckless methods with which they are familiar. The hon. Gentleman has made himself very merry over the qualifications of these Resident Magistrates, and he read out from a printed Return that has been laid before Parliament the various avocations which those Gentlemen pursued before they were placed in the offices which they now hold. Now, the vast majority of the Resident Magistrates have not been appointed by me, nor by a Conservative Government, but by a Radical Government. The House may take it from me that the enormous majority of these men, whose qualifications the hon. Member for York has denounced, were appointed by those of whom that hon. Member is proud to reckon himself the faithful follower. It appears to me that if we adopt the same method of procedure with regard to Members of Parliament as has been adopted by the hon. Gentleman respecting the Resident Magistrates some very singular deductions might be made. I presume that the qualifications of Members of Parliament are not less important than those of Resident Magistrates. In their hands lies not merely the whole legislation of the country, and a great deal of its administration, but apparently also the revision of all the judicial sentences passed in Ireland; and therefore the qualifications required in them are not smaller than those required for a Resident Magistrate. Well, if I were to take the book with which we are all familiar, and to read out the antecedents of the House generally, and treat them in the manner the hon. Member treated the antecedents of the Resident Magistrates, I could, if it were worth while, bring out more ridiculous results than the hon. Gentleman has done. As the hon. Member for York has thought fit several times to quote the opinions of the Superior Courts, I may call his attention to the opinion on this very point of Mr. Baron Dowse, who said yesterday:— As far as I am concerned I would rather have a Resident Magistrate with whose legal capacity the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied than a Member of Parliament with whose legal capacity nobody is satisfied. I think there is a great deal of wisdom in the learned Judge's remark. Then I pass to the next point made by the hon. Member for York. The hon. Gentleman, to prove his case against the Resident Magistrates, quoted a private conversation which he had with one of that body, whose name he did not give. I do not know what view that Magistrate may have of the use to which the hon. Gentleman has put a private conversation which had all the privileges that ought to appertain to private conversation, which obviously was never intended to be quoted in this House, and the accuracy of which there is no opportunity of testing if the hon. Member's version of it is incorrect. I am sorry that the hon. Member for York of all persons should have lent himself to a proceeding of that kind; and the more so because on the face of it his account of the conversation appears to be inaccurate, since he said that the Magistrate told him that he had put persons in prison for three or six months for the offence of trying to stop other persons from hunting over their land. That is an extravagant and absurd statement. It is perfectly legal to prevent people from hunting over your land; and we are to be told that that ridiculous sentence was actually given, and that it was never thought worth while by anybody to bring that sentence before a Superior Court and have it quashed and the Magistrate who passed it discredited. The hon. Gentleman also commented with much severity on the light tone in which the Magistrate described having escorted to gaol certain prisoners who were sentenced to 12 or 18 months' imprisonment. Why, those men who were sentenced to 12 or 18 months' imprisonment were not tried before a Crimes Act Court, as the hon. Gentleman appears to think.

* MR. A. PEASE

I said they were escorted to Sligo, and I ought to have added to undergo their trial at the Assizes.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I confess I rather fail to understand what the accusation is. Apparently we are asked to condemn absent men, Resident Magistrates in Ireland, because one of their body in a private conversation did not speak with sufficient gravity of the duty of escorting to their trial certain men who were afterwards condemed by an Irish Judge and jury to 12 or 18 months' imprisonment for a very brutal and horrible offence.

* MR. A. PEASE

I am unwilling to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman; I did not use the conversation which took place between the Resident Magistrate and myself as in any way an accusation against that particular Magistrate, or against Magistrates in general, but as an illustration of the disposition and attitude towards the people of many of those gentlemen.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation; but I confess my inability to see how that affects the argument. We are asked to condemn the Magistrate because he did not speak in a sufficiently solemn tone about escorting men to be tried for a very brutal offence before a Judge and a Jury. Surely this is sufficiently absurd. Then the hon. Gentleman went on from generalities to discuss particulars, and the particular subject which he chose for discussion was the merits of Mr. Cecil Roche. This, he said, was the worst case of Irish misgovernment. Let us examine the case. The hon. Gentleman described Mr. Cecil Roche as an itinerant agitator. He did not state, however, that Mr. Roche was appointed and twice reappointed by Lord Spencer as Sub-Commissioner under the Land Act, and we know on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir G. Trevelyan) that in selecting Sub-Commissioners, Lord Spencer had special regard to the judicial fitness. Then the hon. Member mentioned as an example of the iniquity of Mr. Cecil Roche the sentence passed upon the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. Cox). The sentence of four months was passed by two Magistrates, of whom Mr. Roche was one. The hon. Member for Clare appealed to the County Court Judge, who diminished the sentence to one month, and made him a first-class misdemeanant. This is said to be the worst case. But, amazing as it may seem, the hon. Gentleman has not taken the trouble to examine what passed at the trial before the County Court Judge. In diminishing the sentence the County Court Judge said:— The Magistrates, when the sentence was originally inflicted, were probably justified by the state of the country at the time in imposing the term of four months. In view, however, of the altered state of things, he reduced the sentence. So that the County Court Judge entirely acquitted the Magistrates of having in-any way exceeded the duty imposed upon them. This is one of the worst cases and one of the worst Magistrates which the researches of the hon. Gentleman have enabled him to discover. Then there is the case of the hon. Member for Kerry. I do not intend to discuss that case again, for we had a long Debate upon it on the Address, but I would remind the hon. Member of this. His accusation is that Mr. Cecil Roche exceeded his magisterial duty in passing the sentence of six months on the hon. Member for Kerry. It was an appealable sentence, and if the hon. Member had supposed that the County Court Judge would reverse the sentence of this unjust Magistrate no doubt he would have appealed. The fact that he did not is a conclusive proof that Mr. Roche was not acting upon any inspiration derived from the Castle, but that he passed a sentence which, in the opinion of the hon. Member for Kerry and his Friends, would have been upheld by the County Court Judge on appeal. The third example given by the hon. Member for York had nothing whatever to do with the judicial work of Mr. Cecil Roche, and I do not know how it is relevant to the Vote before the Committee. It appears that Mr. Roche and Colonel Turner were asked to subscribe to some races in Kerry. They declined to do so, and the reason given was that the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. E. Harrington) was on the Committee, and in their opinion he had used, and was in the habit of using, in his newspaper language against them and the police which made it impossible for them to take an active part in supporting any institution with which the hon. Member was nearly connected. That is not a subject on which I think it my duty to pronounce any opinion, because it is not connected with the discharge of official duties. But to say that they were not to give a vote for Resident Magistrates in Ireland because Mr. Cecil Roche and Colonel Turner objected to subscribe to some races which are managed by a gentleman who in their opinion is in the habit, through his newspaper, of describing them and the police as cowards, liars, and uniformed bloodhounds I think is rather really absurd.

MR. E. HARRINGTON

I ask the right hon. Gentleman now to specify, and not shield himself behind Roche and Turner, where I ever referred to the police in the language he describes

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

What I said I have on the best authority.

MR. E. HARRINGTON

What is your best authority? [Here the hon. Member moved in a threatening manner from his seat to the Gangway in the direction of the right hon. Gentleman, but immediately afterwards returned to his place.]

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I believe the right hon. Gentleman was reading an extract from a letter. [Cries of "He did not," and uproar.]

MR. T. M. HEALY

Get Balfour to keep quiet, or else we will make him.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to use such language.

MR. T. M. HEALY

He made an insulting gesture, Sir. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

It will be impossible to maintain any degree of order unless hon. Members co-operate with the Chair, and attempt to restrain the feelings which they may not unnaturally entertain. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to quote the expressions of some other persons. [Cries of "No!" and loud cries of "Order!"] If it was language of his own, then undoubtedly he ought to give his authority.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Mr. Courtney, you are quite right. With regard to what the hon. Member described as an insulting gesture, it was not in the least intended——

MR. E. HARRINGTON

Menacing gesture.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Well, menacing gesture. [Cries of "Menacing and insulting."] I assure the hon. Member for Kerry that, as far as I am concerned, I have not the slightest desire to insult him by any gesture of mine. It is not my habit to insult anyone by any gesture.

MR. T. M. HEALY

We have too much of that.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order order!

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

What I stated to the House was said with the view of describing the motives which, I understood, and I know for a fact, did actuate the two gentlemen in question—namely, that they believed that the expressions which I have quoted to the House were used by the hon. Member with regard to them and the police, and I do not know that anything more can be said on the matter.

MR. E. HARRINGTON

I will ask the right hon. Gentleman, in fair play, to give his authority. I will apologise to you, Sir, for the heat I displayed. I do not think it is shameful of me to apologise; but allow me to explain that I understood the gesture of the right hon. Gentleman to be a menacing and insulting gesture, and that gesture I was on the point of resenting by bringing the right hon. Gentleman below the Bar. [Loud laughter, interruption, and cries of "Order!"] With regard to the expression "uniformed bloodhounds," if it has appeared in my newspaper those men cannot be in any uncertainty about it, for it is in print; if it appeared in a speech of mine it is in print. Where did the right hon. Gentleman see it? It is not in these gentlemen's letters, for I hold copies of those letters in my hand. I ask him, where does he get that extract?

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I told the hon. Member that I got the views of the two gentlemen I have quoted—Mr. Roche and Colonel Turner—on the best authority; but when I said the words "uniformed bloodhounds," "cowards," and "liars" were used in the journal which is associated with the hon. Gentleman's name, I do not think the statement is so intrinsically absurd that it should bring down upon me the wrath of the hon. Member, because hon. Gentlemen are aware that the epithet "murderer," which is even stronger than either of the expressions I have referred to has certainly been applied to me.

MR. E. HARRINGTON

I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to establish his character for veracity, to specify the authority on which he states that I ever called the Irish Constabulary "uniformed bloodhounds," or that I ever called him a murderer.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I despair of making my meaning clear to hon. Members.

MR. JOHN ELLIS

Give your authority.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I never accused him of calling me a murderer. With regard to the descriptions of Mr. Cecil Roche and the police the hon. Member asks whether they had been made by him.

MR. E. HARRINGTON

What is your authority?

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

What I stated was, that that was the impression of Mr. Cecil Roche and Colonel Turner when they refused to subscribe to the Kerry Races.

MR. E. HARRINGTON

I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman must answer me when I ask him to specify the authority on which he made that statement. I think before his goes one inch further we ought to know that. I hold in my hand copies of the letters from those men, and they have no such accusations as he has stated. If that accusation is contained in any private telegrams or letters I ask him to rise in his place and say so. I claim that he shall not stand up in this House and——

THE OHATEMAN

Order, order!

MR. E. HARRINGTON

Well, Sir, I am satisfied to let the House and the country judge of his veracity in this matter.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Sir, if I have misrepresented the feelings and reasons of Mr. Cecil Roche, I have undoubtedly been guilty of a want of accuracy; but how have I wronged the hon. Member for Kerry? I have not misrepresented those feelings, and it is those feelings alone that are in question.

MR. E. HARRINGTON

The words! I claim that the right hon. Gentleman shall give his authority.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not at all entitled to make any such claim. The right hon. Gentleman has made a representation as to the state of opinion of these two Magistrates, Colonel Turner and Mr. Cecil Roche; to them, undoubtedly, he is responsible for that representation; but he is not responsible to the hon. Member so as to be compelled to verify his statement.

MR. SEXTON

In the interests of the order of Debate—[Loud cries of "Order!"]

MR. SEXTON

(addressing Colonel Saunderson): I told you my opinion about you once before.

THE CHAIRMAN

If the right hon. Gentleman will address the Chair and complain of any specific act of disorder he will be listened to; but he must know that when he addresses an hon. Member across the House the maintenance of order is not possible. I do beg the hon. Member to address the Chair.

MR. SEXTON

When a Member who has insulted me before in this House interrupts me in a disorderly manner, it puts my patience to too severe a strain.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

Mr. Courtney, I rise to order——

THK CHAIRMAN

Mr. Sexton.

MR. SEXTON

In the interests of the order of Debate, which appear to me to be gravely imperilled by the language of the right hon. Gentleman, to say nothing of the gesture, I humbly submit to you, Sir, that the imputation he made at the Table was this—that Colonel Turner and Mr. Roche had complained to him that in the journal conducted by my hon. Friend he described the police as "uniformed bloodhounds." I think it would be in the interests of the order of Debate, and would commend itself alike to all parties, if you were to request the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he is in possession of evidence that any such language was used by the Gentleman in question.

THE CHAIRMAN

I regret very much that such grave language should be used. [Interruption.] If hon. Members cannot restrain themselves it is impossible for me to go on. I regret that such language should be used; but it is used on the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman, who is responsible, not to this House, but to the gentlemen to whom he attributes it in conveying his impression of these motives to the Committee.

* MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am extremely sorry to have raised this storm; but I believe hon. Gentlemen will not doubt my word when I say that the last thing I should have expected was that indignation would have been exhibited at my remarks, since the violence of the language habitually used by hon. Gentlemen and the Nationalist Press is matter of common notoriety. Surely in the columns of United Ireland and other papers language not less violent has been freely used. Nay, in many cases language exceeding this in violence has been used, and it never occurred to me that I should be interrupting the harmony of the evening's proceedings by calling attention to it. But I pass from that to make a mild protest against the use of the word boycotting by the hon. Gentleman opposite. It is not boycotting in the Irish sense of the word to refuse a subscription of a few sovereigns to the fund of a race meeting, and, as used by the hon. Member, the phrase is misapplied, and he misleads himself and everyone who accepts his version of the facts. But I ask the Committee, in concluding a speech which has been lengthened by the interruptions to which I have been subjected, I ask the Committee, is the broad indictment brought by the hon. Member for York sustainable? I have examined and refuted point by point the specific charges he has made, and if we survey the subject generally is there anything to sustain the hon. Member's accusation? There is a broad, simple, and conclusive test of the action of these Courts, and that is how their decisions have been treated by superior Courts. We have had every opportunity of applying this test, for there have been an enormous number of appeals. I believe in 1888 there were 201 appeals from the decisions of Resident Magistrates under the Crimes Act, and of these only 19 were reversed. In the half-year from January 1 to June 30, 1889, there were 121 appeals, and of these only 10 decisions were reversed. Therefore in 18 months from January 1, 1888, to June 30, 1889, there were 322 appeals against the decisions of the Magistrates, and in 29 cases only were the decisions altered, or only 9 per cent of the whole. I am speaking in the presence of many lawyers, and I have the Chief Baron on my side when I say that is a record that cannot be approached by any other Court of First Instance in the world. The Chief Baron has pointed out that the enormous proportion of decisions sustained by Courts testifies to an impartiality no man can doubt, and is conclusive proof that the Resident Magistrates are not open to the accusations made against them. That being so, the hon. Member for York and others were guilty of bringing forward unjust accusations against men, who, under circumstances of difficulty, imperfectly appreciated by their accusers, and of which the hon. Member with experience derived from the Sheffield Bench has no conception whatever—have carried out their duties in a manner that need make no man ashamed who has the interests of justice at heart. Technical reasons have now and then been brought up to show that the Courts ought not to have come to the decisions they did; but it has never been maintained that the defendants were not guilty of the offences with which they were charged, or that the innocent have been subjected to punishment. That being so, the House ought to reject by a large majority an Amendment which is intended to call in question the action of the Resident Magistrates in that which, after all, is the most important of their functions—namely, the pure and impartial administration of justice.

MR. LEAMY (Sligo, S.)

I do not know what are the more important functions of these gentlemen, whether it is giving judicial decisions or in ordering the police to baton the people; it is not very easy to discriminate between the two functions. The right hon. Gentleman found some fault with me this evening for interrupting him while he was making a statement in respect to what was said by the hon. Member for Yorkshire (Mr. Pease) in referrence to the incident that occurred on the trial of my hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon. The right hon. Gentleman was quoting from what was supposed to be a report of the trial, but he took care to read only that part which told in his own favour. Now that I do not think is a straightforward way of dealing with the House, but I suppose it is more or less characteristic of him, and his allusion to "uniformed bloodhounds" is sufficiently recent on our memories. The right hon. Gentleman said that this note-book which has been referred to was not produced because it was a privileged document, and he went on to say they are never produced. But what are the facts? On the first day of the trial the note-book was called for and the Magistrate ordered its production on the following morning. But on the following morning the book was not produced, and the reason was because in the meantime instructions had been received from Dublin Castle. Now, the Solicitor General for England, without caring to inquire into the character of this note-book, gave his assent to the statement that it was a privileged communication. But the police officer admitted that he had used the book for the purpose of refreshing his memory while giving evidence, so I maintain the counsel for the defence was justified in calling for it. I think before giving his opinion the Solicitor General might have waited till he knows what happens in an Irish Court of Justice. I do not know who is instructing the Chief Secretary now, but he appears to have a crowd of instructors legal and otherwise. But I think it will be found that my contention is a right one. At another prosecution which took place at Castlereagh, and in which I was counsel for the defence, a policeman was ordered by the magistrate to produce a note-book under precisely similar circumstances, and the point has been raised, I believe, before Chief Baron Palles, and in his judgment a note-book of the kind was declared not to be privileged. The Chief Secretary, in referring to the speech of the hon. Member who began this discussion, complained that he had referred to private conversations which had taken place between himself and a Resident Magistrate, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be shocked that the hon. Member should have made use of such a conversation in the House. But what has the Chief Secretary to say in reference to a recent police circular sent round to all the police stations in the country, advising the police to seize upon innocent strangers from England and give their information of the right sort in reference to evictions? What does the right hon. Gentleman say to that? The Chief Secretary went on to say that it was quite untrue that men have ever been sent to gaol for preventing hunting over their lands. On this point I should like to refer to one instance within my own knowledge. Waterford is a great hunting county, and it used to be hunted by Lord Waterford. In the beginning of the land agitation in 1880 or 1881, the people of the county objected to allowing the hunt to go over their land, and they assembled and they did no doubt brandish sticks, and I believe some stones were thrown. Now, this was the first occasion on which the tenants asserted their right to say that no one should hunt over their land, and these men were brought up before a Magistrate charged with unlawful assembly. Of course the Magistrates were too cute to charge them with simply obstructing the hunt; they were charged with unlawful assembly, and? Captain Stack, an intimate friend of Lord Waterford and other members of the hunt, sentenced the men to terms of imprisonment from two to three months. This was on Christmas Eve, and a peculiar thing in connection with this trial was that the warrants were filled up before the sentences were pro- nounced. The defending counsel happened to pick up one of the warrants, and when he asked for an explanation he was told—"Of course we are only having them ready." This prosecution, however, killed hunting in County Waterford. I speak as a Waterford man within the hearing of other Waterford men. I will say that if there had been a Magistrate of common sense on the Bench, and with a genuine interest in hunting and at the same time recognizing the tenants' rights, hunting might have gone on to this day in County Waterford, and Lord Waterford would be a happier, merrier man than he is to-day. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of administration as being the most important duty incumbent upon Resident Magistrates. What has he to say of the conduct of Divisional Magistrate Cameron or Divisional Inspector, I believe he is called—I really cannot distinguish these grand titles? When the evictions took place on the Olphert Estate last January, will the House believe that one morning, about 4 o'clock, the agent found that some tenants had re-entered the house from which they had been evicted, and immediately got the aid of some 20 of the Irish Constabulary, visited the house, knocked at the door, and, not being admitted, went at once to the Magistrate and swore that the house was being forcibly held against him? Divisional Inspector Cameron then appeared on the scene and the door was opened by a woman, the house was then taken possession of by the police and used as a temporary barrack for which a shilling was paid to the agent. Is that the conduct of a Magistrate who wishes to act impartially between the people and the police? There have been other and similar cases; on one occasion the Inspector broke open a house in the early hours of the morning and found it occupied by a poor old woman, cowering over the embers of a fire, and in every case of this kind where warrants were issued by the Magistrate and executed by the police, prosecutions were afterwards instituted, but were dismissed for want of evidence. The Chief Secretary has explained why Colonel Turner and Mr. Cecil Roche refused subscriptions to the Tralee Races. The letters from these gentle- men enclosed in one envelope have been put into my hands. The letter from Colonel Turner is to the effect that while under ordinary circumstances he should have been glad to subscribe to the races, he declined to do so because upon the list of Stewards was the name of a person who was a persistent breaker of the law, and a constant traducer of the constabulary and their officers. The second letter says— I am in receipt of yours of this date applying for the usual subscription, but I regret to state that I do not feel justified in subscribing to the Tralee races this year, owing to the presence on the committee of an individual whom it has been my painful duty to sentence to a term of imprisonment, and who systematically insults those who are endeavouring with me to preserve law and order in this country. [Cheers.] I welcome the cheers uttered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I tell hon. Members that these letters will be read from hundreds of platforms in Ireland, and if they are not greeted with cheers like those given by hon. Members opposite, at any rate the advice which will follow the reading of the letters will be received with cheers. That advice will suggest to the people to take a leaf out of the book of the Resident Magistrate in the matter of boycotting political opponents. In Ireland people often seek for a neutral platform on which political opponents may meet, but if this is to be the course of action adopted by the Resident Magistrates, the Irish Members and those who support them will find many opportunities of seeing that their political opponents shall not have as much favour in non-political matters as has hitherto been extended to them. I, for one, believe that boycotting is a perfectly justifiable weapon. I know that last night the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said that it had been invented by our Party. As a fact it was not invented by our Party, for it was practised against our people many years before they adopted it. Now I wish to make a few observations upon another point. The Chief Secretary has quoted a statement made by Chief Baron Palles. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would quote all the statements made by learned Judges. He has also quoted a statement by Baron Dowse, but he has only quoted the statements which tell in his favour. Now, we have the case in which the Resident Magistrate pronounced sentence on Dr. Tanner, and the Superior Court have quashed that sentence on the ground, I understand, that these two Magistrates who, according to the Lord Lieutenant, were acquainted with the law, did not know the law. We surely ought to have some explanation on this point from the Chief Secretary. It would appear that Dr. Tanner declined to recognise the jurisdiction of the Magistrate who tried him, and because he held their Court in contempt, these men who did not know the law, and who, as we now know, illegally sentenced him to a month's imprisonment, are held to be empowered to call upon the hon. Member to give securities to keep the peace, and they adopted this course because they well knew that he would prefer to remain in gaol for three months rather than give such sureties. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has been in the habit of getting up here and saying Sligo —

It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.