§ MR. GILL (Louth, S.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether Head Constable Preston, in visiting certain prisoners in Millbank without direction from any one, was acting on his own responsibility?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe answer is in the affirmative.
§ MR. GILLIs it the custom to allow a constable to rove about English gaols for the purpose of seeing prisoners?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIf the hon. Member asks me the Question, I do not 1278 know anything about the circumstances, but I have no doubt it is in accordance with the English practice.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYAs Preston is an Irish Constable, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he is doing in England?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI believe I have answered before that Head Constable Preston was in London on subpoena from the Commission.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYDoes that give him the right to visit gaols, and do the Government approve of a constable brought over here to give evidence taking other duties and functions on himself and visiting prisoners in gaols in the interests of the Times?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not reply.
§ MR. GILLI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in what capacity did Head Constable Preston visit certain prisoners in Mill-bank; was his application for leave to visit them made in writing; and, in virtue of what consideration or authority was it that Preston was held entitled to have his application to visit these prisoners granted?
§ MR. MATTHEWSHead Constable Preston visited the prisoner Tracy on two occasions as the representative of Mr. Soames. The application was made in writing on the first occasion. The second visit was allowed on personal application. The applications were granted in accordance with the usual practice, which I have more than once explained.
§ MR. SEXTONWas the prisoner Tracy asked in advance whether these visits were acceptable?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI think I have answered that Question once or twice before, but I really do not carry these particulars in my mind.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThe right hon. Gentleman says that on the occasion of the first visit a written application was made. Who made the written application?
§ MR. MATTHEWSThe written application was from Mr. Soames.
§ MR. GILLI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any objection to lay the written application on the Table of the House; and I wish to ask the Chief Secretary under what understanding a Head Constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary is authorized 1279 to act as the representative of Mr. Soames?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not reply.
§ MR. M'CARTANMay I ask the Chief Secretary whether we are now to understand that it was not correct, as he stated, that Preston went to visit Tracy on behalf of the Government to find who was tampering with him?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI believe that to be perfectly and absolutely accurate. I stated that this constable, who was over here on subpoena, did ask Mr. Soames to get leave to visit this prisoner, and I also informed the House that the object with which he visited him was for the purpose I then indicated.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYMay I now ask the right hon. Gentleman if he approves of the Irish Constabulary acting on the initiative of Mr. Soames in visiting these prisoners?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURdid not answer.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI will put the Question again. Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of Head Constable Preston, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, acting for Mr. Soames in this matter?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI did not catch whether the hon. and learned Gentleman addressed his Question to me or to the Home Secretary.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYintimated that he addressed the Question to the Chief Secretary.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI will give my answer. I do not think any general rule can be laid down as to what is proper or improper in the matter. [Ironical cheers.] I repeat, I do not think any general rule can be laid down as to what is proper or improper in the actions of constables in the matter to which the hon. and learned Member has referred. It depends upon the circumstances of the case. For my own part, I will lay down no other general propositions on the subject than those I have already stated to the House on more than one occasion; but, as a matter of fact, I believe in this case the constable in question was not acting as agent for the Times. I stated so yesterday.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYWho was he acting for then?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUROne hon. Gentleman has already referred to the answer which I gave to a similar Ques- 1280 tion yesterday. That answer was given in precise accordance with the information conveyed to me. I still believe it to be accurate.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYAs the right hon. Gentleman has stated that Constable Preston, in visiting the prisoner on a letter from Mr. Soames, was not acting for Mr. Soames or the Times, will he be good enough to state if he was acting for the Government; and will he be good enough to state whether the Government were aware that he was so acting for them?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have already stated that this constable acted entirely on his own responsibility, and the Government were not cognizant of it. But I may remind the House that the circumstances under which any constable visited Tracy were these: Tracy, when in Ireland, volunteered information of a very serious and a very important character connected with crime in Ireland. He was at that time in one of the local gaols—Sligo, I think—
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLCastlebar.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURYes. He was then denounced in the local Roman Catholic chapel as an informer. Thereupon he was removed to Belfast, and in Belfast also police—I am not sure whether this particular constable, but members of the Police Force—again visited him, with a view of seeing whether he would pursue and complete the confession—complete the statement; and I conceive that the police were unquestionably not only doing their duty, but were doing that which, if they had not done, they would have been guilty of a very grave dereliction of duty. I am informed that when the prisoner was brought over to London on the subpoena of the Times he asked to see Head Constable Preston. He either made the request in London or just before he left Belfast; and the Head Constable, I believe, went to the prisoner in consequence of the request of the Treasury—his object being, as I have stated, to elicit, so far as he could, the truth of this matter from the man, and to see what means had been used to tamper with him; and the fact that he got permission to go and see the prisoner through Mr. Soames, who was the instrument through which he had been brought to London as a witness, appears to me to be immaterial.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTThe right hon. Gentleman has made a long statement, but he has not answered. ["Oh, oh!"] I do not complain at all: but what I am going to point out is—
§ MR. E. STANHOPEOh, oh!
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURHear, hear!
§ SIR W. HARCOURTIt is only the Secretary of State for War. What I was going to point out was that the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the Question put to him—namely, Did Constable Preston go into this prison on behalf of the Times or on behalf of the Government; and if he did not go on behalf of either, I think we must ask the Home Secretary by what right Irish constables go into English prisons on roving commissions of this kind?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think I have answered that point, Sir. I have stated that I believe this Head Constable acted on his own responsibility. It appears to me he acted perfectly rightly. Tracy was already giving very interesting and important information to the Government, and this man was perfectly right to try and follow it out.
§ MR. SEXTONIn reference to the statement just made that while Tracy was in Castlebar he was publicly denounced in the Roman Catholic Chapel, as he had turned informer, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to a letter of the Rev. Patrick Lyons, P.P., of Castlebar, who is Chaplain of the prison, in which he states:—
I feel it my imperative duty to give that statement an emphatic and unqualified contradiction. It is utterly and absolutely untrue that Tracy's name was mentioned either directly or indirectly, under any circumstances whatsoever, either in the Prison Chapel or the Parish Church at Castlebar.I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he now withdraws the statement.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, Sir; I do not withdraw my statement. I cannot recollect the name of the chapel at this moment, but I know it is not in the parish church to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Of course I am quite open to correction, but so far no reason has been stated in this House by the right hon. Gentleman to induce me to believe I am wrong.
§ MR. SEXTONrose to put a further Question, but—
§ * MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! I think any further Questions should be put on the paper. The supplementary Questions are becoming very numerous.
§ MR. SEXTONAs a personal explanation, I wish to state that I quoted from the verbatim report of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in which Castlebar Church is mentioned.
§ MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any precedent for the course which has been taken with reference to the visit of the agent of the Times to Nally in Mill-bank; and, if so, whether he will give the date, names, and circumstances relating to the last precedent?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI have already stated that the course followed was in accordance with the usual and frequent practice. It is quite unnecessary that I should refer to precedents.
§ MR. MATTHEWSI can give many; but, inasmuch as the Question appears to throw doubt on my veracity, I decline to do so.
§ MR. LALOR (Queen's Co., Leix)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Delaney, the Invincible convict, was accorded any special privileges; and in virtue of which of the prison rules was it that he was exempt from the compulsion to wear prison dress, and to have his beard and moustache shorn when he appeared to give evidence at the Special Commission?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURAs I have already stated to the House, Delaney was accorded no special privileges whatever. I am informed he was brought over from Ireland in private clothes, in pursuance of the discretion exercised by the General Prisons Board, which was responsible for seeing that the convict was safely produced in Court in compliance with the order of the three Judges.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department upon whose authority or instructions he stated that Mr. Anderson, of the Home Office, would give evidence before the Special Commission; and if Mr. Anderson has been absent from 1283 duty on the 7th of March through illness?
§ MR. MATTHEWSMr. Anderson himself informed me that he was under notice to give evidence before the Royal Commission. He has not been absent through illness.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThe right hon. Gentleman stated in his answer previously that Mr. Anderson had been subpoenaed. Upon what authority did he state that Mr. Anderson would be produced? If Mr. Anderson was not absent through illness, why did the Attorney General ask for an adjournment because one of the witnesses was sick?
§ MR. MATTHEWSI cannot answer for the conduct of the case by the Attorney General in asking for an adjournment. I fail to see the distinction set up by the hon. Member. If Mr. Anderson is produced he will give evidence.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether District Inspector Newall, of Tralee, has been in attendance at the Commission Court for several months, was only examined on 28th January, and is still here in constant communication with the Times solicitor; whether Sergeant Faucett, of Cork, Head Constable Stretton, of Listowel, and Acting Sergeant C. O'Brien, of Tralee, were examined before the Christmas adjournment, but are still here, and in constant communication with Mr. Soames; whether Constable Kenny, Listowel, has been for months attending the Commission in plain clothes, but has never been called, and is in constant communication with Mr. Soames; whether Sergeant Clark, of Tralee, was examined on 13th December and is still here; whether Superintendent Mallon, of Dublin, has been here since the Commission began, or for several months, and has never been called; whether District Inspector Webb, Kilkenny, came over shortly after the Commission opened, and was only examined on 6th March to prove the arrest of Mr. Redmond, being meanwhile in constant communication with Mr. Soames; whether Detective Sergeant Humphreys, of Queenstown, was brought over, kept here for several weeks, never examined, and only allowed to return a few days ago after several consultations with Mr. 1284 Soames; whether eight Royal Irish Constabulary men in uniform, ten Royal Irish Constabulary men in plain clothes, five District Inspectors of Royal Irish Constabulary, and four members of Dublin Metropolitan Police in plain clothes are still here without being examined, although the Commission was obliged to adjourn till Tuesday for want of witnesses; whether they or any of them have been in frequent consultation with the Times advisers; what are they doing in London if they are not to be called; and why do not police witnesses who have been examined return to their duties in Ireland?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe necessary inquiry regarding the various officials is being made; but, as several of those referred to have already left London, it is impossible to give full details before Monday. All witnesses return to their duties in Ireland immediately upon being permitted to do so.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI understood from the right hon. Gentleman the other day that there is a Sub-Inspector in London in charge of the policemen over from Ireland; and, after all, it is only a shilling fare from the Home Office to the office of Mr. Soames.
§ MR. M'CARTANI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Times witness Tracy, who was removed some months ago from Belfast Gaol to Millbank, whether he can state on what grounds the Irish Prisons Board refused the application made on his behalf to have an interview with his solicitor without the presence of a warder, though officers of the Constabulary were allowed to visit him alone; whether he is aware that Tracy alleges that County Inspector Melling and District Inspector Gibbons, during their private interview with him at Belfast Gaol, wanted him to swear against the honourable Member for South Mayo and Father O'Malley, P.P., The Neale, county Mayo, in connection with a conspiracy to murder, and that Tracy was then threatened with continued imprisonment when he refused to swear against either of these gentlemen, on the ground that such an oath would be absolutely false; whether Head Constable Preston, on the occasion of his last visit to Tracy at Millbank, further pressed him to consent to swear against these two gentlemen, and promised him 1285 his liberty if he would attend the Special Commission and swear accordingly; whether Tracy, having again refused to swear falsely as required, was told by Preston that be would not be called as a witness; whether these officers of police were the only persons who held communication with Tracy on behalf of the Times; and, whether, considering the serious nature of the allegations made by Tracy as to threats and promises of reward held out to him by the police officers who visited him at Belfast, in the event of his refusing or consenting to swear as instructed at the Special Commission, he will grant an independent inquiry into all the circumstances in connection with these visits, and as to the communications made to him by the police at and since his removal from Castlebar Gaol?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe ground for refusing the application was that Tracy had no legal case pending. Under the circumstances there did not appear to be any necessity for an interview. I am not aware that Tracy made any such allegations as are contained in the second paragraph of the Question, and if he has done so they are untrue. The allegations in the third and fourth paragraphs against Preston are also untrue. If by paragraph 5 it is intended to be conveyed that these police officers held communication with Tracy on behalf of the Times, I have already stated that they did not do so. As to the last paragraph, I do not see any necessity for granting such an inquiry.
§ MR. M'CARTANIf a statement in writing by Tracy of the character indicated is produced, will the right hon. Gentleman grant an inquiry?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUROf course, I should be glad to consider that or any other communication, but such a statement would not of itself be adequate ground for an inquiry.