SUPPLY [8TH JULY]-REPORT. (Hansard, 21 July 1890)

§ (11.55.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
I do not propose to go at length into the facts in relation to the shooting at Charleville, for the purpose of discussing which this Debate has been several times adjourned; but before making a Motion which will enable the Chief Secretary to make his statement with regard to the case, I must first protest against the action of the Government with reference to this Vote. The Debate has several times been postponed on the express understanding that it would ultimately be taken at a reasonable hour; that is to say, half-past 10 or 11. But Members came down to the House, having been given to understand that the Debate would be taken not later than 11, and we waited, astonished at the action of the Government, until half-past 11, when the leader of the House rose, as we supposed, to move the adjournment of the business then under discussion. To our astonishment he persisted in the Debate, and thus we find this Vote is only reached on the stroke of midnight. In these circumstances, I consider I am justified in saying that faith has not been kept with us. Without occupying more time, and in order to allow the Chief Secretary to speak again, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £10,000.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member cannot do that. The House must say "aye" or "no" to the Question whether the House agrees with the Committee in the Resolution.

§ *(11.57.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,) Dublin University
I think that it will probably be convenient to the House if I made a short statement now, having regard to the fact that the Chief Secretary can only address the House once. I will shortly indicate the position with regard to this matter, with especial reference to certain statements which were made on the last occasion when it 445 was last before the House. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for East Mayo, I have to say the Government had every intention of bringing this question on at an earlier hour. Events will sometimes occur, however, in the course of the discussion of an Order of the Day, which render necessary the postponement of the hour at which a subsequent Order of the Day can be taken. It was stated on the last occasion that the action of "Nolan v. Concannon" might be treated as an action no longer pending. I find, after inquiries, that no step has been taken by Nolan to bring the action to a close, and that it is still pending. Therefore, while the case is still before the Courts, any discussion of the questions in dispute in the action seems to me to be inexpedient and improper. What is the position of the case? It has been alleged that four shots were fired by the police; that a man named Nolan, sitting on a wall adjoining the station, fell down after the shots were fired, alleging that he had received injury from a bullet. It has been alleged, also, that the firing on the part of the police was not justified by any action on the part of the crowd. On the other hand, it has been alleged that there was action on the part of the crowd, the character of which I will not now discuss, which justified, in point of law, the firing of the police. What course did the plaintiff, and those who were desirous of trying the conduct of the police, take? This cannot be represented as a case which the plaintiff brought before a Court of Law for the purpose of obtaining damages for a substantial injury, because the injury done to the plaintiff was so infinitesimal that one question submitted to the jury was whether Nolan was struck by a bullet at all or whether the abrasion on his leg was not caused by a projection from the wall. It was a case brought into Court for the purpose of trying whether, on this occasion, the firing by the police was justified or not. There were two principal ways, in addition to an investigation before two Magistrates, of trying that question. The police might have been prosecuted criminally for the offence of firing at with intent to kill. That procedure would have involved no 446 question as to the nature of the wound sustained by Nolan, and it would have directly raised the question as to the justifiability of the firing by the police. Then, a civil action for the recovery of damages might have been brought; and, with the view of testing the question whether the police were justified in firing, the plaintiff, and those acting with him, elected to proceed by civil action. What occurred? The civil action was tried before Mr. Justice Murphy and a jury. The jury disagreed. There was no shorthand writer employed to take a report of the Judgment, but it appears that the nature and cause of the injury to the plaintiff and the question of the justifiability of the police were left as a jury question. The case was again tried before the Lord Chief Baron and a jury. I have the best means of information as to the charge of the Lord Chief Baron, because a shorthand writer was present. The Lord Chief Baron, without any expression of opinion, summed up the evidence on both sides, pointing out the conflict of testimony on material points as to the demeanour of the crowd, as to whether there was anything which amounted to an attempt to rescue, and as to whether shots had proceeded from the crowd. He left them the question whether the wound was caused by a bullet or not, and the question whether the firing by the police was justified or not. The jury were unable to agree upon the first of these issues, and the action has not since been discontinued and is still pending. There will, therefore, be a third trial involving the question of the justifiability of the action of the police. That question the Government are now asked to withdraw from the cognisance of the High Court of Justice in order that it may be considered by some other tribunal which it is proposed to constitute. That is a suggestion which the Government certainly cannot entertain as long as the civil action in the High Court is pending.

§ (12.12.) MR. W. O'BRIEN (Cork, N.E.)
It seems to me that from beginning to end of this shameful matter the Government have acted in a most shuffling and uncandid manner. The Government were told in the House three weeks ago that there was an end of this action. 447 The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary pretended to doubt the assurance that was then given, and two nights afterwards the Member for Leeds produced and read a telegram from the plaintiff's solicitor stating that no further proceedings will be taken in the matter. The Chief Secretary then appeared to accept the assurance, yet to-night the Attorney General pretends that he is not sufficiently assured on the matter, although I, who was said by the police to be the real plaintiff in the case, now assure the House that the proceedings are at an end. I assure the Government there will not be a third trial of this action, because in the trial which has already taken place the guilt of the policeman has been satisfactorily proved. There were two trials, and only on one question put before the jury, a comparatively insignificant point—whether or not the slight injury received by this man was caused by the grazing of a bullet, or by a spike on the wall—was there a disagreement. The jury, which consisted largely of the political friends of the right hon. Gentleman, were prepared to find that the police were not justified in firing, and it cannot be said of Mr. Justice Murphy, who presided over the first trial, that he was favourably disposed towards the plaintiff or his friends. Prom Mr. Justice Murphy's charge it is clear he considered that the contention of the police that there had been an attempt at rescue was a ridiculous invention. The Chief Baron in his charge also took the same view. If the conduct of the police at Charleville is to be justified and brazened out in this House, our lives in Ireland will not be worth a moment's purchase. To-night the Government fall back upon the miserable excuse that the question is still to be tried by another jury, though it has been tried out already. The question is, whether those 17 armed men were justified in firing four shots into a chance crowd, which they themselves estimated at 100 people, but which I estimate at 40 or 50. In the next compartment but one to that in which I was, there were 11 armed riflemen, and so little did the cheering outside disturb them that not one of them moved out of the carriage, although it is admitted they could have swept 448 the crowd. The whole story of attempted rescue is ridiculous and impossible. The Government offer the same explanations to the House which the policeman offered to Judges and juries, and which the Judges and juries disbelieved. I venture to say it is a shame and a scandal that public money should be employed, as it has been employed, to enable these men to go to trial, and the money of the taxpayers lavished in enabling them to evade the consequences of as gross a piece of savagery as was ever charged against any body of men. If the Government offer the least justification for their action in this case, the least the Irish Members have a right to demand is that copies of the evidence and charges shall be laid on the Table. No man can read those depositions and charges without believing that it is a shame on public justice in Ireland that these men were not drummed out of the Service, if not put upon their trial.

§ (12.23.) MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)
The right hon. Gentleman has tried to imply that the knowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork was in police custody was possessed by the crowd at Charleville Station on the day in question. He omitted to state that Charleville was 35 miles from the city, and that on that day there were no possible means of communication except by the train, as the telegraph office is only open for one hour on Sunday mornings. What occurred on that particular day? A small crowd assembled on the platform to welcome four or five delegates, and when they heard that my hon. Friend was in the train, they gave cheers "for Mr. O'Brien," while two or three ran to the carriage window in order to shake hands with him, whereupon these cowardly ruffians fired, as they confessed, with intent to kill. Now, I say that this House has a right to demand an explanation from the Government instead of the quibbling, prevaricating, and shuffling we have just heard. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to read the report of the trials. I have, and I never heard anything so absurd as the suggestion that there was an attempt to rescue the hon. Member on that occasion. Imagine 30 or 40 449 boys without a weapon in their hands attempting to rescue my hon. Friend out of the custody of 20 strong men armed to the teeth. When these people went to the station, they had not the remotest idea that my hon. Friend would be in the train. I have made inquiries from 15 or 20 persons who were on the platform at the time, and I have seen affidavits which were sworn two or three days after the occurrence, and there is nothing at all to bear out the suggestion of an attempted rescue. The truth is, Inspector Concannon lost his head on that occasion; and long before the train reached Charleville, he was seen boiling over with excitement. It is admitted that be never gave the police orders to fire, and that in firing they disobeyed one of their most stringent regulations. It was sworn by the ticket collector and the head porter in charge of the station that the shots were not tired by the Inspector and the policemen with him until the train was moving from the platform on its way to the next station. This is absolutely proved beyond the possibility of doubt. The guard had given the signal, the whistle had sounded, the train was moving from the platform, when the police fired into this crowd of 30 or 40 people with, as they admit, intent to kill. The young man who brought the action was sitting on a wall engaged in the terribly reprehensible and violent conduct of shouting "Three cheers for William O'Brien," which, if it be an offence, is one committed daily throughout Ireland. It will be a scandal and reproach to this House if an explanation is not given by the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman persists in defending such conduct he is teaching a dangerous lesson to the Irish police and the Irish people, because, if in going to meetings the people are not protected from the unlawful assaults of the police, I should advise the young men to arm themselves with cudgels for self-defence; and as to the more dangerous use of firearms, the right hon. Gentleman is instilling a still more dangerous lesson into the minds of Irishmen, because, in defending the use of such weapons, he cannot expect that the people will not find some way of protecting themselves.

§ (12.35.) SIR HORACE DAVEY (Stockton)
I think the Government are 450 in this matter behaving very shabbily. I am not about to enter into controversial topics relating to any action pending or not pending before the Irish Courts. I am only about to refer to the charge made against the police, both last year and now. It is that they wantonly, and without sufficient provocation, fired upon the people on the platform of a railway station from a railway carriage while the train was in motion and leaving the station. On the 4th of July the Chief Secretary, speaking from information he had received, said, in answer to a question, that it appeared from the official Reports that the door of the railway carriage was surrounded by a mob of about 100 persons; that it was twice forced open, apparently with the object of rescuing Mr. O'Brien; that two shots were fired into the carriage, and that it was only then that the Sub-Inspector and his two men fired. The right hon. Gentleman afterwards said he gathered distinctly that shots were fired by the crowd. I think I am right in stating that at the trial there was no evidence of two shots having been fired, and that there was conflicting evidence as to one shot having been fired by the people. There have been two trials, and on both occasions the jury disagreed as to whether the plaintiff Nolan was injured by a bullet fired by the police or not. Now, I should like to ask the Government whether they are paying Concannon's expenses out of the public funds? Is Concannon's defence to these actions being conducted by the Government out of public money? Because, if that is so, it is idle for the right hon. Gentleman or the Attorney General for Ireland to say they believe, as if the information came to them by the way, that Concannon intends to have another trial. I ask the Government to state whether they intend to have a new trial or not, because although the defence is in the name of Concannon, it is really the defence of the Government. There is another matter the House would like to have cleared up. If the Government intend to have a new trial, at the public expense, what justification is there for it? Are they prepared to say they have better and stronger evidence to lay before a jury in a new trial? If they are not in that position I venture to say 451 they will be incurring a wanton expenditure of the public money in insisting on a new trial in Concannon's behalf. If my information is correct, the case put forward by the right hon. Gentleman was at least exaggerated, and this being so, and the second trial having proved abortive, the Government are not justified in incurring further expense by prolonging this litigation.

§ *(12.40.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight
I regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have charged the Government with acting shabbily for no better reasons than those he has brought forward. He has charged the Chief Secretary—reading from Hansard—with having made an exaggerated statement in connection with this matter, and the alleged exaggeration comes simply to this—that, whereas the Chief Secretary stated that, from the information he had received, two shots were fired, it turned out afterwards that only one shot was fired. That was scarcely sufficient ground for such a charge, and the condemnation of the conduct of the police would hardly depend on whether one shot or two shots were fired, if attempts were made to bring about a rescue. The hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted that there was evidence with regard to a possible rescue, and that he has not the means of forming a judgment, yet he has referred to the two issues of the trial, and expressed an opinion with regard to them. Two issues have been raised in the trials, and they have been separately stated; and it is not in accordance with my experience of the trials of issue to suggest that because two juries have been unable to come to a conclusion, therefore the evidence was all on one side. I should have hoped that anyone having my hon. Friend's experieuce at the Bar would have refrained from expressing opinions which certainly ought not to be expressed so long as there is a prospect or probability of the case coming again to trial. The hon. Member for Leeds made a statement from a telegram to the effect that it was arranged that there was to be no new trial.

§ * MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE (Leeds, West)
The Chief Secretary accepted the 452 statement which I made that no further-action would be taken by the plaintiff.

§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester,. E.
I accepted the statement that the plaintiff did not wish to go on.

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
The statement was accepted at the moment, because it was impossible to ascertain the accuracy of the information given by telegram. But after that distinct statement to my right hon. Friend we find the plaintiff taking no steps to discontinue the action. What is the reply of the hon. Member for East Cork? He gets-up again in the House and says that there will be no further trial as far as-the plaintiff is concerned. Has Con-cannon no rights in this case? I deny that a person who is charged, and is-brought by civil action into Court, has-no interest in the matter; and if the right to trial by proviso exists——

§ MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)
When was the last case?

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
I do not know, but in England, and I dare say Ireland as well, the defendant can take an action to trial, and it would be most unfair if we were to come to a decision on this matter on the assumption that the defendant cannot have the case determined. The hon. and learned Gentleman desires to know whether or not the Government are paying the expenses of District, Inspector Concannon. If the case had-occurred in England I have very little doubt that not only would the expenses of the trial be paid by Government, but that the defence would be undertaken by them, where a policeman, acting bonâ fide in the discharge of his duty has made himself liable, and there is no reason to suppose that he has acted maliciously. I understand, however, that the practice in Ireland is, that when a constable is charged under such circumstances he instructs his private solicitor, who conducts his case. The Government do not undertake the defence, but at the end of the trial, when the matter is considered, if the constable is found not to have acted improperly his expenses are paid by the Government. And in the present case, which is an action brought, as is-now admitted, not for any great injury done to Nolan or for damages, but to try the question whether a constable has- 453 exceeded his duty, and in which two juries have disagreed, it would be very extraordinary not to pay District Inspector Concannon his expenses. My answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman is, therefore, distinct—namely, that Inspector Concannon consulted his private solicitor, that his solicitor conducted the case, and that the case, therefore, has not been carried on at the dictation or under the control of the Government; but when the case comes to an end, the matter will be considered by the Executive, and if it stand as at present, District Inspector Concannon's expenses will be paid. I deprecate any attempt on the part of the House to discuss the issues of the case if it is going to be tried again, and I contend that it will be alike unwise and unjust to expressany judgment upon it until the evidence is fully before us.

§ (12.50.) MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)
There are two important questions demanding reply, and which have been asked in the course of this Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cork did not obtain a candid answer to his inquiry whether the notes would be laid upon the Table. My hon. Friend also inquired whether the costs of District Inspector Concannon would be paid, but the hon. and learned Gentleman evaded the question. The Attorney General gave a hypothetical answer, though he has often expressed his objection to hypothetical answers in this House. What we want to know is whether the public purse is to be placed in this matter at the disposal of a man who, on the night in question, incurred the moral guilt of murder; for, by evidence of the police themselves, they fired with the intent to kill, and the jury agreed that there had been unjustifiable firing by the police.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
No.

§ MR. W. O'BRIEN
Distinctly.

§ MR. SEXTON
While the Government are sheltering themselves under the plea that the action has not ceased, do they intend to procure the continuance of the action by the funds of the State? The hon. Member for Leeds stated the other night that he had read an intimation from the solicitor of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had no intention to proceed. Does anyone imagine that District Inspector Concannon, of himself, would proceed? I 454 suspect that gentleman has had enough of the case, and that he will be glad to be let alone. But now the Government pretend that Concannon intends to proceed, and on that pretence refuse an answer. The good faith of the Government in the matter may be judged by the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland, who never filled a more pitiable rôle than he has done to-night. His speech was a contemptible evasion. One of the right hon. Gentleman's observations was that the Government had no shorthand notes of the Judge's charge. Why, they had a most excellent report. If the humblest politician in Ireland makes a speech on some remote hillside a Government reporter is there, but in the case of a man morally guilty of murder the Government have no means of furnishing a shorthand report of the charge of Her Majesty's Judge. It appears that a police reporter was present on the occasion of the second trial; yet the Government cannot produce the transcript.

§ * MR. MADDEN
I stated distinctly that I had in my hand the transcript taken by the shorthand writer of the charge of Chief Baron Palles, and that the Government are prepared to lay it on the Table.

§ MR. SEXTON
The Government have so many reporters to spare all over Ireland that I should have thought they would have seen the importance of this case, and have taken the precaution of procuring a competent report of the charges of both the learned Judges. The Attorney General said that the plaintiff need not have brought his action before a jury, but might have brought the case before two official confederates of the police. I ask the House from that one-observation to judge of the good faith of the Government. What is their sheet anchor and main defence? That the action has not been discontinued. We have the most authoritative information that it has been discontinued. I protest against the Attorney General trying to mislead the House into the opinion that there was very little cause of complaint. He suggested that the man was not struck by the bullet.

§ * MR. MADDEN
I did not suggest-that Nolan was not struck by the bullet What I did say, and it was admitted 455 by the hon. Member for Cork, was that the trifling nature of the injury led to the conclusion that the action had been brought not for damages but to try the question of the conduct of the police.

§ MR. SEXTON
I should like to know how the Attorney General would feel were he fired at when on the top of a wall, and he fell from the top to the bottom? I should like to know whether the Attorney General would have taken action. The plaintiff suffered severe shock and serious injury, and was for a considerable time prevented from pursuing his avocation. It is notorious that Inspector Concannon showed a lamentable lack of judgment and self-denial. Can anyone read the evidence given in the case, and the charges of the learned Judges, and have any doubt that the statements made by the Chief Secretary last year that a rescue was contemplated, and that the police had orders to fire, have been proved to be absolutely unfounded? There is no doubt in the world that the police fired without orders, and as to the charge of attempted rescue, there is no doubt whatever that nobody in the crowd knew my hon. Friend (Mr. W. O'Brien) was in the train. The armed policemen in the crowd were as numerous as the whole assembly, and they could have swept the crowd away in five minutes. It is noteworthy that no constable left one of the carriages, although they were all in a position to observe what went on on the platform, and that is a conclusive proof that the people came there with an innocent intention, and that any excitement that existed was caused by the desire to shake hands with my hon. Friend. I am curious to know whether the Chief Secretary will still insist that a shot was fired into the carriage. The evidence proves clearly that the shots fired were fired by the police alone. Who would have taken firearms to the station but the police, and for what purpose? The glass and the woodwork of the carriage have been examined, and there is no trace of a bullet in them. I declare that the Government have, in this case, been guilty of the most miserable evasion, that their conduct amounts to an official incitement to crime, addressed to the armed servants of the Crown, and, if they refuse to give us an assurance 456 that the officer will be removed from the post in which he so narrowly escaped the taking of life, it will be impossible for the Chief Secretary in the future to contend that the Government desire the detection of crime or the maintenance of order.

§ (1.5.) MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N)
It is a remarkable thing that the Chief Secretary has not risen. The inference we draw from his silence is that he is afraid to fall out with Inspector Concannon. The Attorney General has said that the jury did not agree. Does he pretend that the Judges have not pronounced that the firing on this occasion was entirely unjustifiable? The hon. and learned Gentleman says the Government have no verbatim report of the observations of Mr. Justice Murphy, though they have a report of the charge of Chief Baron Palles. Let them produce that, and we will take our stand upon it. I read the charge of Mr. Justice Murphy myself. One of the points on which he dwelt was this: He said, the chief defence, in point of fact, the substance of it, was that there was an attempt at rescue by the crowd, and he went on for a quarter of an hour in the most distinct terms to ridicule that allegation. He pointed out that the police were armed men, that they were trained to the use of arms, that men trained to the use of arms and possessing arms were bound to be men of action and prudence, and should not be subject to sudden bursts of passion, or liable to lose their heads. He pointed out that a rescue from armed police was unknown in the country, and, in fact, he ridiculed the bare idea that any rescue had been attempted. I say that if there were nothing more in the case than this consideration—that the contention of the Chief Secretary last year was based on the alleged attempt to rescue—the contention of the Government has entirely broken down. The Government have a verbatim report of the charge of Chief Baron Palles. Let them lay it on the Table of the House.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Hear, hear.

§ MR. CLANCY
As the right hon. Gentleman intimates his intention of laying it on the Table of the House, and refuses to answer us to-night, I do not think we can pass the Vote to-night. The time has come for the adjournment of 457 the Debate. I should have thought that the Attorney General for England would have taken a long time before he spoke of the affairs of Ireland again in this House. I thought he had heard enough of Pigott and his doings in Ireland. I cannot help alluding to the right hon. Gentleman's observation that Inspector Concannon had rights, and that he might go on with the action, as if he had not been blessing his stars every day for the last two months that he had escaped by the skin of his teeth, and as if he could afford to go on with the action. Inspector Concannon got off on a miserable technicality. Two questions were left for the jury: first, whether Nolan was hurt by a bullet, or a spike in the wall? and, secondly, whether the police were justified in firing? The jury could not come to a decision on the second question until they had agreed on the first, and because they could not agree that Nolan was hit by a bullet, they were precluded from coming to a decision on the second point. The idea that Concannon is panting and thirsting for a trial, and that he would have one if his own wish were consulted, is about as audacious a pretence as was ever put forward in this House. He will never move in the matter. He could have served notice to have the case dismissed for want of a prosecution, but he has not taken that course. He dare not take it. The theory that a shot was fired into the carriage was blown to the winds in five minutes. If it was correct, one of two things must have happened. Either some one must have been hit, or the bullet would have been found in the carriage, but neither of these things occurred. Immediately after the shot was said to have been fired, the police were challenged by the Member for North-East Cork to search the carriage. They refused to do so at the time, but waited until the hon. Member had left the train, when they sent two men to search the carriage. That search did not result in the finding of a bullet. In fact, Concannon gave up the theory about the shot being fired into the carriage, and he gave the case away in evidence. The fact was that the flash of the alleged firing was nothing more than the flash of the guard's lantern, which was used to start the train. The Chief Secretary is acting 458 now as he acted in the case of Mitchelstown. When that massacre occurred, the right hon. Gentleman started a theory, and he has stuck to it ever since. Even before he received the full Reports of the police, he started a theory, and that theory he has stuck to in spite of most overwhelming evidence against it. He is doing the same thing now. He delivered a theory to the House, and to that theory he adheres, and now he refuses to give any explanation of his conduct. Under the circumstances, the only thing is to move the adjournment of the Debate, which I now do.

§ MR. E. HARRINGTON
I beg to second the Motion.

§ (1.16.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I think the request of the hon. Member who has just sat down is somewhat unreasonable. Complaint is made that I have not spoken; but there are two reasons why I have not taken part in the discussion. One is that my two right hon. and learned Friends have told the House what course the Government intend to take in relation to laying the report of the charge of Chief Baron Palles on the Table and the payment of the expenses.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
They said nothing about the expenses.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
My hon. and learned Friend has given a complete answer on the two points.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
What was said about expenses?

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
What was said was that certainly, so far as the two abortive trials were concerned, the Government would pay the expenses.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
That is the first time that has been stated.

§ (1.18.) SIR HORACE DAVEY
What the Attorney General for England said was that when the proceedings were over the Government would consider the matter, and he thought if there was no further trial they would pay the expenses of the abortive trials.

§ * SIR R. WEBSTER
I said that the Government would certainly pay the expenses of the two abortive trials if 459 matters remained as they were and no further trial was taken.

§ (1.19.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I understood my hon. and learned Friend to say that, and if hon. Members did not understand it I now state it. These matters having been stated, it does not appear to me that there is anything further to add. I anticipated that the Member for Mid Lothian, at whose request the Vote has been postponed——

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)
No, no.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Well, I was under that erroneous impression, and I was anxious to hear the right hon. Gentleman's observations, or those of some of his Colleagues, before I myself spoke. I was anxious to hear the right hon. Gentleman or some of his Colleagues on the Front Opposition Bench show why the answers given by my hon. and learned Friends, in answer to specific inquiries, were not satisfactory. I now hope the House will not defer coming to a conclusion on this Vote. The hon. Member who has just sat down says he desires to see the charge of Chief Baron Palles. That is a reasonable request, but some delay will be necessary. The charge will have to be printed, the learned Judge will have to correct the proof sheets, and some considerable time must necessarily elapse before the charge can be sent back to the House. I hope the House will not defer coming to a decision on the Vote until we have seen the charge.

§ (1.22.) MR. T. M. HEALY
The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down stated, as is his manner, bluntly, on being questioned closely on the point, what the two learned Gentlemen before him endeavoured to conceal. Concannon has now the declaration of the Government that his costs will be paid in both trials, and then we are to take the suggestion of the Attorney General for Ireland that this man, who has nothing to gain and everything to lose by a third trial, is burning and anxious to have a third trial. The Attorney General said we cannot come to a decision, because the matter may be tried a third time.

§ SIR R. WEBSTER
I said the Government were unable to come to a decision as to the costs, because the case 460 must be tried a third time, but I submitted that it would be undesirable to come to a decision on the merits of the action, because there must be a third trial.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
Then what was the point of the hon. Gentleman's observations as to the merits of the action? The question we have to consider is whether you are going to pay Concannon's costs.

§ * MR. SPEAKER
The question is the adjournment of the Debate.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
I recognise the inexorable logic of that decision, Sir. We ask for the adjournment of the Debate in order that we may have the Judge's charge before us. When the Government think the charge of a Judge is in their favour they produce it without it being asked for, but when it is the other way they cannot be got to do it.

§ (1.25.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I never saw the shorthand notes of the Chief Baron's judgment until the day before yesterday, and it was only yesterday that I recognised that it differed essentially from the report in the Freeman's Journal.

§ (1.26.) MR. T. M. HEALY
This is my point, that the Government, when a charge is in their favour, have both eyes open, but when it is a charge on which we rely, they only see it the day before yesterday.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I asked for the charges of the two Judges, but they could not be obtained together at once.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
I accept the statement that the right hon. Gentleman could not with due diligence obtain the charges sooner. But I submit that our demand for the adjournment of the Debate in the absence of the Judges' charges is not unreasonable. We desire to know, also, whether the learned Judges think that the expenses of Concannon should be paid by the Government. Could not this question be submitted to them? What would be done in England in a case of this kind? If Mr. Justice Murphy should say that he thinks it right that the expenses of this constable should be paid by the Treasury, I will vote for it myself. I cannot say anything fairer than that, and I submit that I am entitled to a reply.

§ (1.30.) MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I must point out that it would be impossible to ask any Judge in England or Ireland to answer any question of that kind. Although the Judges in question distinctly stated they loft all the matters of fact to the jury, they expressed no opinion on the matters of fact. I am informed that if two similar cases had occurred in England, and the jury had disagreed, the expenses of the police would be paid by the Government.

§ * MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
I think it is well the Debate should be adjourned, and the merits of the question gone into. If Nolan in the meantime would take the steps that are necessary in order to discontinue the action, the merits might be fairly gone into.

§ MR. DILLON
I hope that after what we have heard the Government will consent to the adjournment of the Debate. If they do not I trust my hon. Friend will go to a Division. An overwhelming case has been made out in favour of the adjournment of the Debate. Everyone feels in his heart that it is desirable that the merits of the case should be fairly placed before the House. The conduct of the police is highly debateable, and it is plain that the two Judges who listened to the evidence were of opinion that the police did not act as they ought to have acted; that they ought not to have fired. [Cries of "No."] Well, at all events, it is clear that the facts of the case ought to be brought before the House of Commons before the Session ends. We have had experience on more than one occasion of allowing the consideration of cases to be postponed from one Session to another. If the police did fire on this occasion without justification they committed a great outrage, and not a single one of the men who fired ought to be entrusted with deadly weapons. If we allow this Session to go by without bringing this matter before the notice of Parliament what will happen next Session? We shall be told then by the Chief Secretary that this is ancient history, and is a matter in which no one takes any interest at all. We have been treated in such a way before, and we do not mean to be treated like it again. Therefore, I trust my hon. Friend will 462 go to a Division, if the Government will not give way.

§ (1.35.) MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)
I noticed that when an hon. Member on this side of the House drew attention to the weak point at issue, namely, what was contained in the Judge's charge, hon. Members opposite made indications of dissent. That proves conclusively that Gentlemen opposite differ from us altogether upon the important question, what is contained in the charge of the Judge. I put it to hon. Members, as fair-minded Englishmen, whether it is fair to ask us to decide the question without knowing what the Judge said? The Chief Secretary said he had not seen a report of the case until Saturday last. How many of his supporters have taken the trouble to read what the Judge said? I certainly think the Government would do well to consent to the adjournment of the Debate for a few days longer.

§ (1.37.) MR. W. O'BRIEN
I venture to believe that the speeches of hon. Members opposite have made out a good case for the adjournment of the Debate. The Attorney General for Ireland distinctly evaded the important question of costs, but the Chief Secretary blurted out that the Government will pay Mr. Con-cannon's expenses. If there is an adjournment we shall get considerably further into the confidence of the Government. I agree with my hon. Friends that we ought to have before us the Judge's charge and the evidence given at the trial. I understand the charge was given by the Chief Baron himself; and as to the evidence, I venture to say a Government reporter was present throughout the whole course of the trial, taking notes of the evidence and of the Judge's charge. The Government ought to-night to tell us whether or not they are in a position to give us a full and complete report of the evidence. I think we are entitled to know whether or not the police reporter was present, and did take down the whole of the evidence, and, if so, whether the Government will lay the notes fully before the House, in addition to the charge of the 463 Chief Baron. The charge of Mr. Justice Murphy does not appear to have been supplied by him. If the police reporter is not in a position to supply it I would suggest that the verbatim report of the charge which appeared in the Freeman's Journal—generally a very accurate journal in the matter of shorthand reporting—should be submitted to the learned Judge, and that he should be asked to say whether it is a correct report of what he said, and to supply any deficiency he may find in it. If a police reporter was present the House should, I think, be placed in possession of his notes. I think the House is coming to the conclusion that there is something very much astray in this case, and that the consciences even of the supporters of the Government are being touched in reference to it. The Government would, in my opinion, be wise to adjourn the discussion now, and before it is resumed full materials should be forthcoming for taking the judgment of the House with reference to it.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
There was no Police report.

§ (1.42.) MR. E. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)
The Government are tonight without the necessary evidence.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
We have no means of getting the evidence. There is no Government report of the evidence. The only report I know of is the Freeman's Journal report, and that of course we cannot use.

§ MR. W. O'BRIEN
Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the police reporter whom I saw taking notes of the evidence throughout has no notes?

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I have no knowledge of a police reporter having been present. I can only say that no Police report was ordered by the Government, and that no police reporter, as far as the Government is aware, was ordered to be present, or was present, on the occasion.

§ (1.43.) MR. E. HARRINGTON
I place more reliance on the right hon. Gentleman's statement than he does himself. He told us to-night he was still awaiting the Report from Chief 464 Baron Palles. ["No, no !"] He talked of the time it took for the learned Judge to correct his proofs. Well, surely it will be some time before hon. Members have that Report in their hands. We claim that the Report of the Judge should be in the hands of Members before they give a final vote. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) about the presence of a police reporter, I believe, from my own knowledge of Ireland, that it was impossible for a police reporter not to be present on the occasion. A few persons in the town of Tralee, suspected of being of Nationalist proclivities, met together in a peasant's house, and by direction of the authorities a police reporter was present to watch the case. It is impossible to think that in a case of this kind the Government did not direct an official reporter to be present. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as the representative head of the Government, he did not direct that an official report of the case should be supplied to him from day to day.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
No.

§ MR. E. HARRINGTON
Then I must accuse the right hon. Gentleman of the grossest negligence in this matter-By laying the Report on the Table the Government might dispose of this matter in five minutes on a subsequent occasion, and possibly without debate. What good can the Government expect to come from the attitude they have adopted on this question?

§ (1.59.) DR. TANNER
I think the House has not had a fair opportunity of discussing this Report. If the Government had not broken their pledge the Vote would have been taken at an hour when it might have been adequately discussed. I have only recently had an opportunity of seeing the man Con- 465 cannon. I know him, and, in my opinion, he is just as guilty as if the four shots had taken four lives. I agree that the House ought to be supplied with a transcript of the shorthand notes taken at the trial. Are we to understand that a shorthand writer was not present on the instructions of the Government?

§ (2.0.) Sir JOHN COLOMB
rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

§ (2.0.) DR. TANNER
In the first place I was trying to address myself to the details of this particular case, and I was seeking to point out the case as an additional reason why we should go on with the discussion. There are many other matters relating to the Constabulary which demand our attention-We want to know why the constable who was taken red-handed in a moonlighting expedition was permitted to escape by his fellow constables, and allowed to leave the country on board one of the New York steamers at Queenstown. But I must refer back to the case of Inspector Concannon. We believe him to be a murderer in thought, if not in deed. We have it admitted that the police fired their rifles on that occasion at Charleville without orders, and I say that the sooner the House deals with this matter, and deals with it in a proper way by giving an impartial investigation into the circumstances, the better it will be for all concerned. It will certainly tend to promote an improved state of things as regards law and order in Ireland. Under the present system every petty constable at every small station in and about the country is a despot. The police are looked upon with suspicion, contempt, and horror. All this is the outcome of the dastardly policy of a cowardly faction. [A laugh.] It is all very fine for hon. Members to laugh while they remain perfectly safe in this country, and do not have to encounter humiliation at the hands of these police scoundrels in Ire- 466 land, but I do submit that something should be done to put an end to this state of things, which really amounts to a condition of anarchy, thanks to the efforts of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

(2.6.) MR. P. J. POWER (Waterford, W.)
When we complain of conduct of the police such as that of which they were guilty at Charleville, we are told by the Attorney General that we have the Criminal Law at our disposal, and yet he refuses to put this Criminal Law in force, when, as we submit, a ease has arisen for its application. But it is evident to me that the Government wish to hush up these charges against Inspector Concannon, and they ought to be ashamed of such a desire. It is notorious, in connection with the trials which have already taken place, that Judges who were not particularly friendly to us, expressed their opinions against the actions of the police. The Attorney General for England has just treated the Committee to a speech couched in tones of high morality. That is what we are used to from him. We know how he has always treated the Irish Members, how he has used his position to pursue them. Our contention is that in England costs would not be paid for the defence of police in such a case as this, and we object to the public money being expended for the defence of Inspector Concannon. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in his speech the other night, said the verdict of posterity on his administration would be that he had endeavoured to stand between the oppressor and the oppressed. I think it is a somewhat strange commentary on that statement that he should approve, as he has done in this case, the action of a police official in firing upon the defenceless crowd.

§ (2.10.) Mr. BARTLEY
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

§ * MR. SPEAKER
I am bound to say that I think for the last quarter of an hour the Debate has not been of a character to induce the House to prolong it much further. I shall not consent to the Motion for the present; but I am bound to say that if the Debate goes on 467 in its present form I shall be obliged to consent to it.

MR. P. J. POWER
We Irishmen are just as anxious to go home as hon. Members opposite, but we complain that the Government are alone responsible for the prolongation of the Debate, because of their refusal to accept the moderate proposals we are making. This matter is one of great importance to the Irish people. The lives of these people depend, to a great extent, on the action of the Government; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has made the Constabulary so indignant against us that they stop at nothing in order to hurt us. I maintain that, as the Minister responsible to this House, it is his duty to repudiate the action of the Constabulary in such cases as this. But, unfortunately, he declines to throw the police overboard when they are guilty of the most outrageous conduct. There was a case almost as bad at Mitchelstown the other day, and on that occasion the action of the police was confirmed by the Government. I think we should be wanting in our duty to our constituents if we did not exhaust every form of this House to extract from the Government some statement repudiating the action of these men, and unless we do get such a repudiation I am afraid that during the next winter more people will be shot down by the police for merely asserting their rights as citizens.

§ *(2.15.) MR. B. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)
I do not intend inflicting a long speech on the House, but I wish to say a few words as to the case of Devlin. Here was a man caught red-handed in the act of moonlighting, as gross a case as any of those which have eventuated in sending men into penal servitude for 10 years. He was actually forcing a door when, fortunately, in the interests of justice, the tenant, a man of strength and determination, caught him and took him to the police barracks, although Palmer threatened to kill him. The peasant having handed over the moonlighter to the police, went away 468 without formally charging him, and advantage was taken of this fact to let the man out of custody, pending the issue of a summons against him. The man, consequently, escaped from the country just as proceedings were being taken against him, and the Inspector, when questioned on the subject, merely remarked, "You will have to go a long way to find him." I say that the Government directly connived at this man's escape from justice. We intend to let the country know these facts, and thus expose the insincerity of the Government policy.

§ (2.20.) Lord ELCHO
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"