HC Deb 21 March 1892 vol 2 cc1386-429

VOTE ON ACCOUNT.

(1.) That a sum, not exceeding £3,886,563, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for and towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893."

Resolution read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

(8.42.) MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I should like on this Report to refer to several questions which affect Ireland. The Congested Districts Board has the control of a large amount of funds, and exercises powers which, if wisely exercised, may have a most salutary effect on the condition of Ireland. It is expedient, therefore, that the business of that Board should be conducted in public, and I know of no reason why it should come before the public in the guise of a remedial Star Chamber. If the Press cannot be admitted to the meetings, it is desirable that a very full precis of the proceedings should be communicated to the newspapers. That could be no injury to the Board, and the result might be that useful suggestions would be secured from time to time. When the Land Purchase Bill was passing through the House I suggested that this Board might be improved by the introduction of an elected element, but the late Chief Secretary informed me that it was considered advisable to make choice of gentlemen who were unconnected with any political Party. That reply imposed upon me for the time, but I see that one gentleman who was appointed on that Board is now stumping South County Dublin, in the Unionist interest. I presume that if he enters Parliament he will resign his position on that Board. Another matter to which I wish to refer is of great importance to the ratepayers of the City of Dublin. The local rates of Dublin are not collected by a local officer, but by an Imperial official. The Corporation of Dublin have obtained powers to collect themselves the municipal rates, which amount to two-thirds of the whole rate; that is to say, £200,000 out of £300,000. The remainder is divided into the rates required—North and South Unions and the police rate. The office of Collector General is now vacant by death, and we desire an assurance that the Lord Lieutenant shall not fill up the office without having consulted with the Dublin Corporation. I asked to-day that reasonable time should be allowed to the Corporation of Dublin to decide whether they would undertake the collection.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,) Leeds, N.

That is an elastic phrase.

MR. SEXTON

It is, but I only ask for reasonable time. It is reasonable to assume that the Corporation will undertake the collection, because their collection would become efficient and cheaper than under the present, system. In that case it would be very unfair that a Collector General should be appointed at a salary of £1,200 a year and a subsequent pension to collect £100,000. I may mention, also, that the two Unions are quite willing that the Corporation should collect their share of the rates, and that would leave only £30,000 for the police rate, to be collected by the Imperial officer. That would probably cost the Government £10,000 to collect, and I would suggest that the whole amount should be left to the Corporation to collect. It may be said that there might be some difficulty in securing prompt payment, but the Government have to pay the Dublin Corporation large sums every year on various accounts, and they might hold this money until an agreed-upon proportion of the police rate had been paid. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman for a decisive answer tonight, but he might consider the matter. Another point on which I have asked a question and received an unsatisfactory answer is with respect to the preparation of the voting lists for the Local Board elections. In many cases the tenants are entitled to more than one vote; but in consequence of the action of the Returning Officers, they were deprived of their additional votes. The right hon. Gentleman told me that the matter was regulated by Statute; but the Returning Officers in Ireland are most of them untrained in the practice of the law, and considerable annoyance has arisen from their having, as we contend, interpreted the Statute improperly. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give instructions on which no mistake can arise, if not in time for the current elections, at all events as early as possible. On the subject of finance, I should like to call attention to the fact that Ireland was entitled to a sum of £40,000, which was the equivalent of what was given to England and Scotland for the relief of taxation. For two or three years we were deprived of that money, and now it has been locked up in the Land Purchase Court to meet a contingency which will never arise and will not be available for five years. We ask that three-quarters of that sum should be taken out of that fund by an Act of the present Session, and that it be applied to the remission of taxation. The Intermediate Education Board, after two years, have done nothing to utilise the grant of £40,000 which was given them. It was at my own instance that the Government agreed to allot this sum of £40,000 out of the produce of the Beer and Whiskey Tax. The Intermediate Education Board have only spent £5,000 of this sum, one-third of which has been spent on administration. The intermediate schools in Ireland have gone to very considerable expense, both in fitting up scientific apparatus and in getting the services of highly-qualified teachers at good salaries; but the money is lying idle, while many of the schools are starving. When in Dublin in the winter of 1890 I inquired at the Intermediate Education Board what they meant to do to utilise the money granted by Parliament, I found that no steps were being taken, and I was informed at the Board that they did not expect the grant would amount to more than £30,000 a year. But the tax on beer and whiskey produced £39,000 odd, and how the Education Board could come to the conclusion that it would only produce £30,000 passes my comprehension. This is a scandalous exhibition of incompetence on the part of the officials of the Board. I should have thought that the Board would have been glad to have the opportunity of providing the means of stimulating intermediate education in Ireland; but the money has been absolutely thrown away, and the Board has done nothing whatever. It appears there was a scheme on the stocks, but nothing has been seen of it. I ask the Chief Secretary to dig up the scheme, if it exist, and urge the Irish Executive to bring it into active operation. Undoubtedly the money must be spent in some way. It might be spent usefully, and if the present Board can not use it, it ought to be taken from them. I wish now to refer to a question affecting the salary of the Superintendent of the Irish Pension Office. We know it is owing to the action of that gentleman that we are about to be deprived of £90,000 which we ought to have for the purpose of primary education. When we opened this discussion in Committee of Supply we were not acquainted with the facts, and the Treasury refused to state them. But bit by bit we have extracted a little information, and now we know that the Superintendent of the Irish Pension Office in Dublin is Mr. Denham Robertson, an actuary at the War Office in London. That gentleman receives a salary of £900 a year as an actuary at the War Office. He resides in London, and I presume his duty is to attend at the War Office from day to day. But he is also Superintendent of another office in Dublin, several hundred miles away, and the question is how he is able to divide his time between his duties in London and Dublin? The whole thing is only fit for the region of opéra bouffe. It is a burlesque mode of conducting the business of an important office in Dublin. This man in 1885 reported that there was a surplus of £190,000 in the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund. If he had been an Irish official in Dublin, acquainting himself with the actual condition of the fund, he could not have made that error. Mr. Denham Robertson paid a holiday visit to Ireland perhaps once or twice a year, and on the strength of these holiday visits he made a return to the Treasury with regard to the state of the fund. The Treasury never checked his return; they were satisfied with his word, and they proceeded to make new rules for dealing with the surplus of £190,000. Mr. Denham Robertson continued to be actuary at the War Office, and at the end of six years—in 1891—he made another holiday visit to Ireland, and made a second valuation of the fund. He found there was a swing of the pendulum, and that the fund was now £190,000 to the bad. There was no reason in the world why the fund should not be in a state of equilibrium. I often think if Tory Members were only present to hear these facts, and could appreciate the injury and insult which are inflicted upon Ireland by giving the control of such large funds and such an important office to a gentleman who only visited Ireland for a holiday, and if the Government Whips would only stand aside when a Division was called, I have no doubt what majority I would have. I have to ask that the services of Mr. Denham Robertson shall be altogether reserved for the War Office, and that the Superintendent of the Irish Pension Office, which has been so disgracefully bungled in the past, shall be confided to some Irishman who could give his whole time to the duties of the office, or if there is no Irishman to be found qualified for the task, and if you must send a Saxon over to Ireland, let him be an Englishman who can devote his whole time to the duties of the office. As long as I am a Member of this House, and as long as Mr. Denham Robertson continues Superintendent of the Irish Pension Office, I will never allow any Vote with which his name and salary are connected to pass this House without question. I wish now to call attention to the case of Patrick Nally, who lately died in prison. Nally was convicted many years ago, in a time of great political excitement, upon the evidence of a paid informer and an instrument of the police. I knew the man years ago, and the opinion of those who were intimate with him was that he was innocent. You put him in prison and you kept him in prison for a longer time than you would have kept any ordinary convict. You brought him to London and subjected him to the torture of solicitations by the agents of the Times newspaper, suggestions being made to him that he should offer evidence to incriminate some of the Irish Members. Offers were held out to him of liberty and reward; but, spurning these overtures, he was taken back to prison in Ireland. When brought away from prison for this purpose he protested indignantly against the treatment to which he had been subjected. It appears he called out "God save Ireland," and for this disorderly exclamation he was punished. After refusing to give evidence or to make evidence at the solicitation of the Times' agent, he was taken back to prison. His health broke down, and repeated requests for his release on the part of Irish Members were disregarded by the Irish Government. He died in prison. His illness was kept a secret from his relatives. His brother, a medical man, was even refused permission to see him; and all our requests that the Government should lay on the Table a copy of the evidence taken before the Coroner have, up to the present, been unavailing. The matter cannot be allowed to rest, as the circumstances of Nally's death are surrounded by grave suspicion. If the Government would lay on the Table the sworn depositions before the Coroner a great deal of time would be saved. I will now call the attention of the Attorney General to the case of the Achill Islanders. It is a wild, rugged barren island on the West of Ireland. The people were kept alive on seed potatoes, relief works instituted by the First Lord, and the contributions of the charitable public. They had, in fact, been kept alive by official and public charity. Within the last few weeks the landlords obtained a decree against these people for rent. They made some resistance, or gave some annoyance to the bailiff, and a prosecution was instituted, in the language of the law, for unlawful assembly. I am not debating the question of the prosecution. What I complain of is the conduct of the Crown Solicitor and the Magistrates after the prosecution was instituted. These poor islanders had to cross seven miles of stormy water for the trial. They were brought before Colonel Stewart and Mr. Horn, who, by his diligence in making up cases under the Coercion régime, was promoted to be a Magistrate. These islanders, ill-fed and half-naked, made their way to the Court. The hearing lasted all day, and although it was known that the prosecution would not be pressed, and that the prosecutor was willing to take the recognisances of the prisoners, the Crown Solicitor said, nothing of this. The Magistrates adjourned the hearing, not to the same Court, but to another town 13 miles inland. These 80 people, men and women, with no food or money in their pockets, had to lie about that town all night, and in the course of the night, and in the midst of a blinding snowstorm, they had to start for another town. They had to cross one of the highest mountains in Ireland. I have heard that the atmosphere of the Court was not sweet enough for the Magistrates, as the poor peasants had come between them and the wind. It has been said there was no snowstorm, and that no women travelled. No women travelled the whole way. They broke down in the storm and took refuge by the wayside. Next morning, when the Court was opened, all the men did not appear, When Mr. Horn called the muster roll he was about to sign a warrant for the attendance of one poor man who had not turned up in time. The man came in at the last moment, and, on being, asked why he had not appeared at the opening of the case, said he had come out of a fever, his feet were blistered, and he could not keep up with the others. There is a picture of civilisation in the view of the officials of the right hon. Gentleman! Surely the Crown Solicitor at the end of the first day might have said the prosecution would not go on and allowed the men to go on bail, but he remained silent and allowed that journey to be taken, as these two Magistrates, with 80 peasants before them who had come over seven miles of water, had adjourned the inquiry to another town, 13 miles inland, in the midst of an inclement winter. We have heard a good deal of the benevolent policy of the First Lord. I will not question that useful results have been produced; but I would press a policy of decency and consistency in the case of people who have maintained life by public charity and by the granting of money by the Government, that an effort should be made to infuse something of the spirit of common humanity in the bosom of the minor agents of the Government in Ireland. There is a minor question relating to the Constabulary Force. Each county is entitled to a full quota. The people of Ireland, as Imperial taxpayers, pay £7,000,000 to the Imperial Purse, and they get back only £4,000,000. They pay for the whole Constabulary Force as contributors to the Imperial Purse, and they are assessed a second time for any men over the force quota. I would not have raised this question if the people were only charged the difference between the free quota and the extra men actually serving. But the Government have some way of juggling the Accounts.

MR. JACKSON

It is according to the Act.

MR. SEXTON

One would think, if a county was entitled to a certain number of men, that only those extra would be charged for; but you make a charge for absentees and for recruits in training at the depôt. I submit that recruits at the depôt are not in the service of the county, and that any charge for them should come out of the Imperial Vote. There is nothing more astonishing in the whole circle of Irish administration than the method of dealing with this question of extra police. It may be called a test of order or disorder, the presence of extra police. It is now quite two years since the First Lord began to say the condition of Ireland was perfectly satisfactory; that exceptional crime had ceased; that there was no longer boycotting, and that wherever we look for confirmation we shall find it, whether in the criminal statistics or the charges of the Judges at the Assize. The Criminal Calendar is almost blank. With only six offences against the person in Ireland in the last Calendar, surely one might expect that extra police had been discontinued. The tax for extra police is most oppressive. It falls entirely upon the cesspayers. The Grand Jurors pay none of it, and they always like to have plenty of police. In the county of Clare, scheduled under the Congested Districts Act for special relief, and in which relief works have been executed, the charge this year for extra police is no less than £6,000, or 5d. in the £1 for every farmer. Why is that charge maintained? There is no special crime, no boycotting, nothing in the criminal statistics, nothing in the speeches of the Judges at Assize, and the declaration of the Government that their policy has succeeded warrants the abandoning of this charge. I find that in the year following the enactment of the Coercion Act in 1888–9 the charge for extra police was £63,000; and now, in the presence of your claim that exceptional crime has ceased, your charge is £56,000. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give more than a mere commonplace answer, and give the House a substantial assurance that the charge for extra police will be discontinued. You cannot boast in England, for the purposes of gathering votes, that Ireland is tranquil, and at the same time impose upon the people the same financial burdens as if Ireland were in a condition of criminal disorder. I wish also to call attention to the case of the Bangor police. A woman was accused of a very grave criminal charge. The police considered it important to have evidence of the handwriting. The District Inspector of Police and the sergeant under his charge entered into a conspiracy or combination to obtain such evidence of the handwriting as might secure a conviction. The result of this combination was that the sergeant went to the house of the woman before she had any notice of the charge. Paying what appeared to be a perfectly unofficial and friendly visit, he requested the woman to write a love letter to assist him in carrying out a hoax, which he wished to deliver to one of the policemen, and if he wrote the letter himself the man would know his writing and the joke would fail. The woman fell into the trap. She wrote the letter, and the letter was actually produced and handed in at the trial as evidence. I hardly blame the sergeant, as the police in Ireland have been so much debauched by the methods of the Government that one can hardly wonder at such conduct. They do things in Ireland which no officer in England would commit. The police in Ireland have been not only encouraged to sail close to the wind in order to make up cases anyhow, but have been promoted for doing so. It is because of such practices that gentlemen like Mr. Horn have been promoted from the ranks of the police to the Bench of Justices. When the papers came before the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland he directed that there should be no prosecution, and that fact should be borne in mind in forming an opinion upon the case. It is absolutely clear that the District Inspector and the sergeant were not able to distinguish between political offences and ordinary crime. I think that a distinction ought to be drawn between them, and I ask that an inquiry should be made into the case, and that a communication should be addressed to the Inspector General, pointing out that the District Inspector has rendered himself liable to dismissal.

(9.32.) MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

This is a matter which practically affects the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, but it has become a feature in his leadership that he is never in his place on the Treasury Bench. I will refer to only one matter, and that is with reference to the Congested Districts Board. It was appointed by the Irish Government, and a vast sum of money has been placed at its disposal. Out of the ten Members composing it eight are Protestants and two are Roman Catholics. Now, I say that this Board has been packed with men who are pronounced Unionists and militant politicians. I am a Protestant myself, but there is a difference in Ireland between a spiritual and a political Protestant.

MR. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

Which are you?

MR. MACNEILL

I am not compelled to give a confession of faith. I am a simple Christian. These men were not chosen because they were able or good administrators, but because they were political Protestants, and were able to carry out Lord Salisbury's views. I will now point out that in a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury he stated that the work of the Board was to be of a decidedly unpolitical character. But is he aware that Mr. Horace Plunkett, one of the Commission, is a Unionist candidate for South Dublin, and that he is relying on what he has done in connection with the Congested Districts Board to be elected to this House? Then, again, on the 14th May, 1891, when the Land Purchase Act was under discussion in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman put on the tone of virtue which has so touched the hearts of Primrose Dames, and said he admitted that that part of the Bill should as far as possible be divorced from anything in the nature of politics. On the evening of the same day the right hon. Gentleman also said that it would not conduce to the good working of the Board if any Member of it were associated with a acrimonious political disputes. Now, who is Mr. H. Plunkett? He is the son of the late Lord Dunsany, a very high-minded man, but a strong politician, and his brother was a Tory Member of this House. Therefore, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman how he has fulfilled his pledges. It is not fair to allow public money to be used for electioneering purposes. Will he at once dismiss this gentleman? He has no right to be a politician on one side, and a philanthropist on the other. My hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Johnston) was dismissed from the Irish Fishery Board because he took part in politics, and is Mr. H. Plunkett to be made an exception? I charge the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury with deliberately appointing Mr. Plunkett as a Commissioner in order that he might make political capital out of his position.

(9.50.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

I have been practically challenged by the hon. Member (Mr. MacNeill) to deal with the question which has just been raised; and as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Jackson) has to reply to an important speech made earlier in the evening, the House will perhaps permit me shortly to do so. The hon. Gentleman has referred to certain utterances of mine in which I expressed the desire that the Congested Districts Board should be as far as possible divorced from all Party and electioneering feeling. That hope I then entertained, and I still entertain it. The hon. Gentleman has charged me with having known that Mr. H. Plunkett was a candidate for South Dublin at the time I suggested his name as a member of the Congested Districts Board. I should have been gifted with a remarkable power of prophecy had I then known that of which Mr. Plunkett himself was unaware. I did not even know that Mr. Plunkett contemplated in any circumstances entering political life. I had known him to be keenly interested in the development of Irish industries, and practically acquainted with the congested districts of Ireland, and I knew that he had given much time, much trouble, and much money to the advancement of Irish interests. I then thought, and I still think, that he is a man eminently qualified to carry out the work of the Congested Districts Board. Some months subsequent to his appointment, and after he had fully determined to devote his time and energy to the work of the Board, Mr. Plunkett was appealed to to become a candidate for South Dublin. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mac Neill) said that Mr. Plunkett had used public money which had been voted for the Congested Districts Board for electioneering purposes.

MR. MACNEILL

No; I said nothing of the kind. What I did say was this—that Mr. Plunkett was using the constituency in Dublin as a means by which he could claim benevolence in distributing money in other parts of Ireland.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman referred to my speeches to show that I had stated that it would be a very serious thing to allow a Member of one county in which there were congested districts to have the management of the money; but he knows that South Dublin is not one of the congested districts. Therefore, whatever else can be said, at all events it is certain that Mr. H. Plunkett was not obnoxious to the particular suspicion which would undoubtedly have attached to any Representative of a county in which there was a large congested district, or who had the administration of the funds. With regard to the candidature of Mr. Plunkett, I say that I have had nothing to do with suggesting or recommending it. I never urged him to stand; and if my influence was exercised in any way, it was exercised in the way of his not standing.

MR. MACNEILL

Put him off the Board.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Even if I had the power to put him off the Board I should certainly hesitate before I asked a gentleman to resign whom I knew from personal knowledge to have the greatest interest in, and the most disinterested zeal for, the welfare of that class in Ireland for which the Board was intended. I agree that the utility of that Board will not be augmented by Mr. Plunkett's candidature for South Dublin, but I would point out that he was a member of the Board long before he became a candidate for the constituency. Although it might be true that had I known that Mr. Plunkett was to be a candidate for South Dublin I might have searched elsewhere for a man to fill his place, I doubt whether I should have found a man more competent than he has proved himself to be. So far as I am aware, the members of the Board were not politicians, and I would point out that one member of it, Mr. Kennedy, shares the political views of the hon. Member.

MR. MACNEILL

No; he does not.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Well, he is a very strong Nationalist. I do not profess to know all the shades of Nationalist politics; but Mr. Kennedy has always been a noted Nationalist, and he is a Roman Catholic. If Mr. Kennedy had stood for some Nationalist seat, I should regret it as far as he was a member of the Board, but I would no more think of recommending my right hon. Friend to advise him to resign than I would think of asking him to advise Mr. Plunkett to resign. I have acted, as far as I could, with perfect impartiality in this matter. I think politics should be eschewed from the Board, and, so far as I have seen, they have been rigidly and absolutely excluded.

(9.58.) MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)

I think that the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast and of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury must have convinced the House that the affairs of Ireland have been grossly mismanaged during the past twelve months. It has also been clearly shown that Mr. H. Plunkett has used his position as a member of the Congested Districts Board in order to further his political candidature. The right hon. Gentleman has furnished clear evidence that the Boards in Ireland will be maintained as presently constituted so long as it is to the interests of the Government now in office. It has been proved that Mr. Horace Plunkett has used his position as a member of the Congested Districts Board to administer the funds in order to further his canvass for Membership of this House. He has boasted of the manner in which he has been able to serve the people of Ireland as a member of this Board, and his action in that regard, which has alike been characterised by bad taste and by a breach of the Constitution, is still upheld by the Leader of this House. I hold that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman furnishes the House with ample and sufficient evidence that the affairs of Ireland are grossly mismanaged, and that in this particular instance a grievous wrong has been done. These Irish Boards consider it their duty to do nothing as long as they can, to do as little as they can when they do anything, and when they are compelled to act to do it wrongly. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is himself an example of that deterioration which overtakes any Irish official. We used to know the right hon. Gentleman as a kindly disposed Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who made soft and plausible answers to questions that were addressed to him, and who kept himself on good terms with all those with whom he came into contact. But the moment he became an official his heart became hardened, and from that time we detected a change. Sir, there was another matter brought forward by the hon. Member for West Belfast, and that was the case of Mr. Horn. My hon. Friend used the expression "want of common humanity," with regard to the treatment of those people in the West of Ireland who came under the jurisdiction of Mr. Horn. But Sir, what else is to be expected from officials whose conduct is defended by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench irrespective altogether of the wrongs and the evils that these people do? Not only that, but the very officials who abuse their position are selected for promotion. We have an example in the case of Mr. Horn. I have some experience of him. Exactly nine years ago I was summoned before him, although he was not then a Resident Magistrate, and what do you think he suggested to me? Because I did not answer his question, and although I had not committed any crime, this Mr. Horn advised me to leave the country. Why should I leave the country at the bidding of an Irish Magistrate, having as good a right to stay here as he? That was the question I asked myself. I was a good citizen; I had responsibilities of a domestic and of a social nature which I was endeavouring to fulfil, and was I to turn my back on my native land, on my people, because this English official was not pleased with my conduct? In England a man who acted in such a way as Mr. Horn acted would be reprimanded, but in Ireland he is selected for promotion. There is another matter to which I desire to call the attention of the House, and that is in respect of the conduct of those responsible for the death of P. W. Nally. I will read some extracts from a fellow prisoner to show he was unduly done to death. Nally was sentenced about ten years ago; he was found guilty after two juries had disagreed, being at last convicted on the evidence of a common informer. There was no case against him. In consequence of having cried out "God save Ireland," under circumstances of excitement, he lost the beneficial results of his good conduct in prison, and was kept there sufficiently long to be done to death. But for shouting "God save Ireland" he would have been released nine months before he died, and would have been living till this day. He was removed from Downpatrick to Mount-joy, and when he came back he was looking so ill that the doctor directed attention to him. His fellow prisoner writes:— The medical officer and Deputy Governor of Mountjoy swore at the inquest that P. W. Nally did not look at all strong, and that he was greatly changed when he returned from Downpatrick. The medical officer, therefore, stands condemned on his own words, for he gave P. W. Nally no medical treatment, and instead of continuing the dietary allowed him by the doctor in Downpatrick, he put him on the ordinary prison fare. Towards the latter end of the summer some filthy disease broke out amongst the pigs—22 of them died; they were all buried in the garden. P. W. Nally had to assist in burying the animals. When the pit was re-opened for the purpose of burying others the stench that arose from the half-decomposed carcases, in the words of another prisoner, who saw Nally at this revolting work, 'would knock down a horse.' A couple of weeks before his admission to the hospital, Nally said, 'I think I have taken the disease from the infernal pigs,' and he added, 'I do not care so much if I live to go home, and see my father and mother. These were the last words reported to have been used by this unfortunate young man. We have all very strongly felt his death; he was known to most of us. We believe him to have been innocent, and to have been wrongfully convicted. In prison he was treated with unnecessary harshness, and set to work of a disgusting and of a deadly character; for that reason, Sir, I move a reduction in this Vote.

MR. SPEAKER

On the Vote the hon. Gentleman would not be in Order in taking that course. The whole Vote has already been put to the House, and the Motion for reduction cannot, therefore, be entertaine.

(10.20.) COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

In view of the fact that there has been an arrangement that the Scotch Resolutions on Report of Supply are to be taken at half-past 10 o'clock, I will content myself by voting against the whole sum involved in the Resolution. I have spoken to many people in Mayo on the subject, and I believe in the perfect innocence of Nally. I believe the evidence against him was not sufficient to justify a conviction. And if we cannot move the reduction of the Vote we will take a Division against the whole Vote.

(10.21.) THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,) Leeds, N.

I will very shortly go through the several points which have been raised. It is unnecessary for me to say more with reference to meetings of the Congested Districts Board—because that has been already replied to by the Leader of the House—than that I have considered the question, and I am strongly of opinion that it would not be in the interests of the Public Service that the Press should be admitted to meetings of the Board. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has suggested that a precis of the work done should be given to the Press. I have talked the matter over with some members of the Board, and I think something of that kind is already done. I see, however, no objection to an announcement being made of the work which has been actually undertaken. As to the question of the Collector General of Rates, the office has been vacant now for some time in order to afford the Dublin Corporation the opportunity of considering the question, and seeing whether they will exercise the powers given them under the Act of 1890. I apprehend that the Corporation will, before very long, be able to give a definite answer to the question, and in the meantime His Excellency has delayed making a permanent appointment to the office. The suggestion has been made that possibly the whole of the rates could be collected by one body. It is true they are collected by one office now, but I think it would be unusual—and not advantageous—that, for instance, rates which were assessed and levied by other bodies such as the Boards of Guardians and other rates should be collected by the Corporation. I do not think that would work well or satisfactorily, but I agree with the hon. Member who asked the question that if the Corporation decided to take over the collection of their own municipal rates, which, as the hon. Member for West Belfast has pointed out, form two-thirds of the whole, then of course the head of the remaining office will be brought into a different position from that which he occupies now, and consideration will have to be given as to the amount of the salary to be paid him. There is no desire to prejudice the due consideration of the question by the Corporation. An hon. Member referred to a question connected with voting for Guardians and the issue of instructions by the Local Government Board with regard to it. If the hon. Gentleman's statements represent the real facts of the case, and there is any chance of different decisions being arrived at upon the same facts by the various officers, it will be desirable that instructions on the subject should be issued by the Local Government Board. I will, however, take the matter into consideration. Then an hon. Member referred to the reserve fund under the Land Purchase Act, and pointed out that the £40,000 a year, which is to accumulate until it reaches £200,000, is out of all proportion to that fund. I need not enter into the question further than to say it is necessary to convince the House and the country that under the Act the British taxpayer will run very little risk and that there will be ample security for the re-payment of the advances made under that Act without calling upon the British taxpayer. And I certainly think that without further experience of the working of that Act it is too early to attempt to interfere with the reserve fund. I do not think that the hon. Member himself will be much disposed to be annoyed if he finds at the end of the year that the Act has been largely availed of by the people of Ireland. The hon. Member also referred to the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise Duties) residue which has been handed over to the Intermediate Education Board. I have made some inquiries as to the amount of money which has been expended, and no doubt up to the present time there has been comparatively little expenditure out of the fund, but I think this should be borne in mind, that the first payment out of it was not made to the Intermediate Education Board until nearly the end of the year. The Board naturally desired further information before settling the terms of their scheme. They have, I believe, settled that scheme, and it is in actual operation. It is confirmed to this extent, that I have had two letters from representative masters of schools interested, which seem to indicate that they themselves take the view that under the scheme which has already been framed there will be a larger expenditure than has hitherto been the case by the Board. I am sure no hon. Member will desire that the Intermediate Education Board should be rushed into trying to expend money, but that they should exercise their calm judgment, proceed cautiously and try to expend the money to the best possible advantage. I would remind the House that when the Act was passed it was distinctly understood that the money was handed over to this Board until Parliament should otherwise order, and, therefore, if it should be found desirable to transfer a portion of it to some other purpose equally advantageous to the people of Ireland, it would not be inconsistent with the original contemplation, as evidenced by the Act itself. The hon. Member referred to the question of the Teachers' Pension Fund and the superintendent. I hope the House will excuse me for not entering upon the question of the Teachers' Pension Fund and their superintendent. The question is under consideration, and I am sure the House will not wish to pass any censure upon a public officer until the whole matter has been thoroughly examined.

MR. SEXTON

The gentleman has given up his own Report for 1885.

MR. JACKSON

I must not be led into discussing that. All I will say in answer to that question is, of course, that the alterations made following 1885 have something to do with it, in addition to which there are other circumstances over which he had no con- trol—namely the raising of the age at which candidates become teachers, and, therefore, limiting to some extent, the period of their contribution to the fund. The hon. Member (Mr. John O'Connor) referred to the case of P. W. Nally. I have read everything connected with that case, so far as the records of my Department have allowed me to do so, and I cannot find the smallest evidence to show that anything was done of which complaint can reasonably be made; and I go further than that and say that, as far as I can judge, from the time Nally was taken ill to the time of his death, the utmost care and attention were shown to him, not only by the two prison doctors but by the eminent doctor who was called in to assist them—Dr. Cruise. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. John O'Connor) seems to doubt whether that was the case.

MR. J. O'CONNOR

I admit that they were called in after the case was hopeless

Mr. JACKSON

I suppose most of us have experience of illnesses that perhaps in their earlier stages do not assume a very serious character, but that sometimes develop that appearance afterwards. Two trained nurses were in attendance. Dr. Cruise was called in and entirely approved of the course which had been taken by the prison doctors in Nally's case, and, so far as I can judge, there is not the smallest particle of evidence to show that anything was done which should not have been done, or that anything was neglected which could have been done in order to save his life. I, therefore, hope the House will not think it necessary for me to go through the old story again. I will only say the evidence shows—

MR. SEXTON

We only want the evidence.

Mr. JACKSON

That is to say you want the evidence which was given to the jury at the Coroner's inquest. But, the hon. Member seemed to make a complaint that the Government were not represented by counsel at the inquest. Well, when I first saw reports of the inquest being held, I was in Dublin, and, the very question I asked was as to whether the Government had been represented at the inquest, and I was told they had not. I asked why, and the answer I thought was an extremely good one; namely, that they desired really to leave the matter entirely and freely to the jury, and not seem to influence them in one way or the other. It seemed to me that that was a very good course of procedure. I think there might be very great difficulty if the Government were called upon to present reports of evidence taken at a Coroner's inquest at which they were not represented, and at which no questions were asked by counsel on behalf of the Government. I can conceive that great inconvenience might arise from such a course of procedure; and I do not think the Government would be justified in presenting reports of the kind unless they were represented at the inquest, and had taken some part in the proceedings before the Coroner. The hon. Member referred to the question of Clare Island. I have read very carefully the whole of the report of what took place, and I think I can explain it in a very few words. I am satisfied that there is no justification for assuming or believing that the Magistrates on that occasion acted otherwise than for what they deemed to be the interests of the people concerned. In the first place, the defendants were represented by a solicitor on the first day. The Court was adjourned in consequence of some illness; that adjournment lasted over a period of time. Subsequently the Court met at Louisburgh, about which I may repeat what I said, that there was no accommodation in the Court. It is a small room over another building without any seating accommodation, except for solicitors and clients, and it was entirely unsuited for accommodating so large a number of people as were there standing three or four deep, it being packed through the whole course of the proceedings. On this particular day it was thought that during the course of the day an arrangement would be come to. It appeared to be extremely probable, so much so that the parish priest recommended a certain course to be taken which would have had the effect of producing the result desired. It therefore became necessary to adjourn the case. According to the appearance of the case at the end of the first day it looked as if it would last six or seven days, and if all these persons had exercised their right of cross-examining the witnesses, and if it had lasted so long, it would have been quite impossible to have conducted it either with comfort or without seriously interfering with the case. I believe the result shows that no harm has been done. There is one more point, and that is about the Constabulary Force. The hon. Member seems to think that the free quota, as it is called, should be represented by the actual number of men serving in a district. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say there was a difference between the free quota and the number actually serving.

MR. SEXTON

They should only pay the difference between the free quota and the number actually serving.

Mr. JACKSON

If you take the total force of 10,006 men which have to be allocated to the different counties throughout Ireland, that number must, of course, include not only vacancies and absences on leave, but also recruits. Therefore, I think it would not be possible without a complete alteration to carry out the plan the hon. Gentleman has suggested. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the extra force in Clare. There has been a considerable reduction of the extra force in Clare. With regard to the extra force generally, I find that while in 1887 the number of the extra force was 1,556, it has now been reduced to 1,000—a reduction of more than one-third of the total extra force chargeable upon the counties.

MR. SEXTON

Why do you charge £56,000 on the Vote?

Mr. JACKSON

The hon. Member knows that if the £56,000 is not expended it will not be charged. I think I have now attended to all the points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite—

MR. SEXTON

Whatabout Sergeant Boyd?

Mr. JACKSON

There is no doubt that the Inspector did give instructions to Sergeant Boyd to obtain a specimen of this woman's handwriting, and he accepts the full responsibility for all he has done. I have already stated that I think in a case like that such a course ought not to have been adopted, and communication has been made to the Inspector expressing the view I have just stated.

(10.45.) MR. P. O'BRIEN (Monaghan, N.)

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were most anxious to leave the whole case to the jury. Our contention has been that that is exactly what they did not do; that they did not place all the information in their possession before the Coroner's jury. My chief reason for rising is to direct the Chief Secretary's attention to a letter from a fellow-prisoner of Mr. Nally, named M'Auley, who has been released since Nally's death. The letter appeared in the newspaper called the Western People. In it Mr. M'Auley says— Immediately after Mr. Nally's death five prisoners requested the Deputy Governor to have them examined at the inquest (he gives the names); but, notwithstanding their earnest request that they should be examined, they were refused, and the Governor replied that they had forfeited all their civil rights, and for that reason refused to allow them to go before the jury. It was to the interest of the Government to put all the evidence they had before the jury, and if M'Auley's statements are true the Governor held back from the jury material evidence. I will read other extracts.

MR. A. J. BALEOUR

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and remind him of the arrangements that have been made, and beg of him to condense his remarks as much as possible?

MR. P. O'BRIEN

I am most anxious to facilitate the arrangements of the House, but I am also anxious not to see my countrymen dying in gaol. I wish to put the Chief Secretary in possession of information which he can investigate for himself before the case comes on again. I will ask him to appoint a Commission to hold a sworn inquiry into these points. M'Auley also points out in his letter that previous to Mr. Nally being transferred to Mountjoy Prison he was under special treatment on account of his health, but that on reaching Mountjoy Prison he had to clean out a piggery in which 20 or 30 pigs were kept, and connected with which there was a pit closet, which was the worst in the prison. He was engaged in cleaning this place when taken ill. Some of this came out before the jury, but the evidence of these men, who were employed with Mr. Nally, was kept back. As there are in the prison a score of men, many of them respectable and the victims of packed juries, like Nally, I think a sworn inquiry should be held, and the light let in so far that we may see how they are treated. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take this into his consideration.

Mr. JACKSON

I do not think I am under any obligation to have a sworn inquiry into the matter, as the hon. Member suggests. I see no reason in the facts brought before me to justify such a course; but if the hon. Member has any further evidence, if he will put it before me I will satisfy myself on the point.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 215; Noes 80.—(Div. List, No. 49.)

    cc1409-29
  1. CLASS VII. 7,713 words
Forward to