CLASS III. (Hansard, 10 July 1890)

§ *(12.3.) MR. H. GLADSTONE (Leeds)
When this Vote was before the Committee the other day I raised a question as to the Charleville shooting case, and was surprised when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said he could not accept the statement of myself and the hon. Member for North-East Cork that no further action would be taken against District Inspector Concannon. I have now received this telegram— Action Nolan against Concannon won't be proceeded further with.—Wm. J. Fitzgerald, plaintiffs solicitor, Mallow. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take that as authoritative. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what course he proposes to take with regard to the police who were guilty of wantonly and illegally shooting at an innocent, unarmed, and orderly crowd? There were about 70 citizens on the platform of the railway station that night. Four shots were deliberately fired with intent to wound or kill. The right hon. Gentleman told us to-night that the epitaph he desires to be written on his administration in Ireland is that he defended the rights of every citizen. How does the Chief Secretary propose 1402 to vindicate the rights of those citizens of Charleville, and what course does he propose to take with regard to the expenses of the police in the trials in Dublin?

§ (12.5.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Now I know, for the first time, that no further proceedings will be taken, I shall, of course, examine into all the facts connected with the trial.

§ (12.6.) MR. T. M. HEALY
The right hon Gentleman must not suppose that the matter is to be disposed of in that way. He tells us below the Gangway that we need not ask him questions. He has been asked a question now, not by an Irish Member, but by the son of an ex-Prime Minister and of a future Prime Minister, and we have heard what answer he has given across the floor of the House, on the pretence that it was never the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to examine into the brutal and blackguardly conduct of Concannon, or to bring his mind to bear on the declaration of Chief Baron Palles, or Mr. Justice Murphy. That is a specimen of the right hon. Gentleman's answers to questions on a matter of the most vital importance in regard to Ireland. What, under these circumstances, can the obscure Irish Members, who are taunted with poverty, and with not being good enough to sit in an assembly of this kind, what are mere creatures like us to expect? Sir, we shall insist upon having something like a definite statement before the Report of this Vote is agreed to. The Lord Chief Baron told the Jury that the gathering was not an illegal assembly. The Jury were unable to say whether, as a matter of fact, the injury to the plaintiff was inflicted by Concannon's bullet; but it was admitted that the police fired upon this unarmed and inoffensive crowd, with the view, as they swore, of taking life. The Jury were told that they were not entitled to consider whether the police were justified in firing, but it is a question for the Government and for the House. If it had been a case of batoning the people in Trafalgar Square, the Home Secretary would not have professed in the House of Commons that he had not considered what had been said by any London Magistrate, or he would not have held his place 40 minutes. We have a right to know whether Concannon's 1403 expenses are to be paid by the Government or not. There is no device too mean or contemptible for the Government to resort to. In the case of Father Kennedy, who obtained a verdict for £100 against the police, for breaking into his house, application has been made for a new trial, which cannot be argued until November, solely in order to put the case over the present year's Estimates. We know that the police expenses will be paid in that case, and that Concannon's expenses will be paid. The Government will not have the face to put them in the law charges, but they will pay them out of the Secret Service, Fund. If a policeman were to stab the Leader of the Irish people in Sackville Street, Dublin, and the Government did not back up the man and pay his legal expenses, that moment the entire system would crumble away. The right hon. Gentleman is tied to a system which I do not hesitate to describe as an infernal system. I denounce that system which puts into the hands of every drunken braggadocio who is in the service of the Irish Government the right of firing off his weapons as he will, knowing that the greatest intellects at the Irish Bar, and the virtual Leader of this House, the rising hope of a stern unbending power are bound to defend him through thick and thin. As the right hon. Gentleman tells us he cannot answer to-night, we tell him we cannot give him this Vote to-night. We shall be prepared to discuss the Vote as soon as the right hon. Gentleman is in possession of information, and, in the meantime, I have the honour to move that the Debate be now adjourned.

§ (12.20.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I have already addressed the House, and I suppose I should be out of order if I discussed the arguments put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
I will withdraw the Motion if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss what I have said.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Of course, I only speak by the leave of the House, and what I say shall be put in the most uncontroversial language. I do not think the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. Gladstone) could complain of the tone of my answer to his question, though, of course, he has a right to complain, if he likes, of the substance of it. Let me remind the House of the exact position in which we stand. I have learned to-night, at a quarter past 12 o'clock, from a telegram sent not to me, but to the hon. Member for Leeds, that the case which all the Irish papers have agreed in stating would be proceeded with has come to an end, and I am now asked, at 20 minutes past 12 o'clock, to state the exact course the Government intend taking in reference to it. It is perfectly true that I have read the charges of Mr. Justice Murphy and Lord Chief Justice Palles, but not with the care I should have done had it been a question of taking judicial proceedings. It is quite true, however, that both those learned Judges appear to have said that the meeting in question was a perfectly legal one, and that there had been no probability of a rescue being attempted. But what course should be taken on these facts I must absolutely decline to deal with at five minutes' notice. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. T. Healy) has said that if the Home Secretary had been asked a similar question he would have given a reply at once. I am perfectly certain that my right hon. Friend would have absolutely declined, unless he had time to weigh the facts and to consider the whole of the circumstances, to decide what course should be taken with regard to the costs. It would be a great dereliction of duty on my part if, after a Debate which has now gone on, as far as I am concerned, since four o'clock this afternoon, and which in my case was preceded by a no less heated Debate between 12 and 3,I were to say I was in a condition to give a judgment to the House which may affect the future of all the policemen concerned. I am sure the House will see that, in refusing to give a decision now, I am not only acting with no discourtesy to the hon. Member for Leeds, but I am taking the only course which every impartial Member of the House will not condemn.

(12.24.) MR. J. MORLEY (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
To a large extent I agree with the observation of the right hon. Gentleman that it is not to be expected from him that he should be prepared to state the course that the Government will take in this matter, which admitedly is one of considerable importance, at five minutes' notice. But if it is impossible for the Government to determine what course they will pursue in reference to the matter at this short notice, certainly the House of Commons cannot be expected to part with their control of the subject until the decision of the Government is announced. The matter was brought forward with every particularity and circumstance by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, on Monday last, and all the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary then said, was, that he could make no further statement respecting it because it was sub judice. The right hon. Gentleman appears now to know no more about the circumstances of this important case than he did on Monday last.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
It was not over.

MR. J. MORLEY
I do not care whether it was over or not. It was the right hon. Gentleman's duty, in my opinion, during the four days that have elapsed, to make up his mind on the primâ facie case, at all events, and to acquaint himself with the circumstances, so that he might have been enabled to say more to-night than that he will make inquiry. It is monstrous to ask the House of Commons, by passing this Tote, to part with the whole subject, and to leave it entirely to the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman whether we are ever again to have an opportunity of discussing it.

§ (12.27.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
May I say I believe the question would more properly come up on the Law Charges Vote?

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
As a matter of order, I wish to say that we were told by the right hon. Gentleman, as a reason for closuring the Vote the other night, 1406 that we could discuss everything we wished to discuss on the Police Vote upon the Vote for his own salary. Now he tells us we can discuss on the Law Charges Vote what we want to discuss on this Vote. We have to reckon with the Chairman of Committees.

(12.28.) MR. J. MORLEY
I submit, with all respect for the right hon. Gentleman, that this is a topic which concerns the conduct of the police. It is not a point which entirely affects the law charges. This is the way that Irish subjects are always dealt with. Any occasion is fit to discuss a charge except the present occasion. On Monday the right hon. Gentleman could not deal with it because proceedings were then going on. To-night he cannot deal with it, first of all, because he has not yet received the necessary information, and secondly, because we are able to discuss it at some other time. Why was the Vote closured on Tuesday night? I can understand what may have been in the minds of the Government, but, having availed themselves of the Closure on Tuesday, it is rather too bad to come down now and say that this Vote must he passed without the question being raised upon it. I feel this so strongly that, whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Longford has done, I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I do not wish to insist on the Vote. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has taken this course, but, perhaps, it would be better if I put off the Vote.