§ (THIRD VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £2,111,500, be granted to Her Majesty, on account of the Charges for the Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894."—[See page 1102.]
§ Resolution read a second time.
1350§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL () Tyrone, S.called attention to several matters connected with the administration of affairs in Ireland. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for affording him this opportunity, and said he would endeavour to repay the right hon. Gentleman's courtesy by brevity. He wished, first, to direct the Committee's attention to a rather serious disturbance at Bundoran, in Donegal, on Sunday week. The Evangelisation Society, an Organisation composed of ministers and members of various Protestant Churches, had been conducting a mission in the North of Ireland. On Sunday week the Society sent two of its agents to Bundoran, a seaside place much frequented by visitors. The Society had a tent put up in a private field, by the permission of Mr. James Hamilton. Before the arrival of the two evangelists a Nationalist newspaper published a leading article, in which it was said—
The visit of the evangelists to begin a propaganda has aroused deep indignation among the Roman Catholics, who have made up their minds, whether rightly or wrongly, that they will not permit this fresh insult to their feelings or their religion.He did not know what was meant by "fresh insult," because the evangelists had not been in the locality before, and nothing like an insult was intended either to Roman Catholics or any other portion of the community. Few, if any, Catholics attended the services in the tent. It was asserted that when the people were leaving the parish church they were assailed and assaulted by a mob of over 1,000 persons, who had been brought from Gleneagh and the mountains for the purpose of doing what the Nationalist paper had advised—namely, interfering with religious liberty under the pretence of not permitting a "fresh insult." The Rev. Mr. Templeman and others were assailed and assaulted on their way to the tent. When the mob were remonstrated with by a gentleman of some position in the town, they answered that they had made up their minds that they would not permit this sort of thing. The tumult lasted something like an hour in the public streets, and the town was in an excited state all night. The normal 1351 strength of the police force was 17 officers, and others had to be called in. He gladly admitted that the Chief Secretary had taken every step in his power to prevent anything like a recurrence of these transactions; but he was anxious to direct attention to the language of the newspaper, which said that proceedings which were perfectly legal and proper could not be permitted any longer. Surely these men had a right to preach the Gospel in the open air? Protestants were not prepared to accept the liberty which the Nationalist newspaper and mob in Bundoran were willing to concede to them—the liberty of meeting within four walls to carry on religious services. Protestants had a right to meet on private property, as in this case, and to erect a tent, and they had no right to be restricted by Nationalist feeling, and, moreover, they had no intention to submit to such restriction. Besides, this was not the first time that such an occurrence had taken place. His hon. Friend the Member for South Londonderry had informed him that some time ago a similar body of men were assailed in the same way. There had only been three arrests made, though this was not all the enforcement of the law they desired to see. He would tell those mountaineers of Gleneagh that Home Rule had not passed yet. What were these men doing? [Cries of "Go to Eastbourne!"] He no more approved of what was done at Eastbourne than he did of the proceedings at Bundoran; but the shouts of the men from Gleneagh were for Home Rule, and they cheered for the Prime Minister. That was the idea of religious and civil liberty they had to expect when the right hon. Gentleman had got his way. The Prime Minister had not got his way yet; they were still under Imperial control and Imperial protection, and they asked that these evangelists should receive that protection. The Chief Secretary ought to have known, and his officers in Bundoran ought to have known, from the information contained in this newspaper and from the offensive placard with which the town was posted in the name of these evangelists—a placard for which no Protestant was responsible—that these disturbances were likely to take place, especially as they had occurred 1352 under similar circumstances in other parts of the country. Before he left Donegal he wished to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to another thing in connection with that county. The right hon. Gentleman knew, no doubt, the circumstances of the murder of District Inspector Martin at Gweedore. Martin's widow was allowed compensation by the Grand Jury—he forgot the amount, but it was a considerable sum—for the murder of her husband. That sum was to be levied off certain baronies of the County of Donegal; but the barony of Gweedore, in which the murder took place, had not only not paid a penny of the widow's claim, but had not paid a penny of county cess for some years. The people simply declined to pay. The matter was before the Grand Jury at the last Assizes. The Grand Jury could not get a collector to undertake the duty of collecting the county cess in the barony of Gweedore because the claim for the widow of District Inspector Martin was involved in it. The collectors evidently considered it dangerous to life to attempt its collection. The Grand Jury had a long correspondence with the Executive in Dublin on the matter. The Executive stated that the Grand Jury had not allowed a sufficient poundage or commission. The Grand Jury replied that they had offered the highest poundage or commission that the law allowed. They requested the Executive to do what was done by the late Government in the case of the compensation of Constable Leahy at Mitcholstown—that was, that the warrants should be addressed to the Constabulary and the cess collected by them. This was refused by the Government, and so a deadlock was reached. Did the Chief Secretary intend to maintain that position? Were those people—many of whom were on the ground on the Sunday that Martin was murdered—to escape paying this compensation to the widow of the murdered man and all other county cess as well? The third point to which he desired to direct the attention of the Chief Secretary was some recent proceedings in the County of Clare. [Ironical laughter from Nationalist Members.] He was aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that Clare was a most excellent place, and that the people of Clare were the most law-abiding 1353 people in the country. But that was not the view of the Chief Secretary, because the right hon. Gentleman held that the state of Clare was a disgrace to civilisation. He did not wish to repeat the old story of crime and outrage in Clare, but he desired to direct attention to what had taken place in Clare only the last week. There was a riot, or, at all events, an unlawful assembly at Bodyke. He was not going to say anything, and nothing would induce him to say anything, in favour of Colonel O'Callaghan, the landlord of that district. If the case of that landlord was to be fought in the House of Commons, he was not the man to fight it. But if the law were broken at Bodyke or elsewhere the officer of the law in that place had a clear duty to perform. Quite recently there was, what was admitted to be, an unlawful assembly, arising out of seizures for rent in the neighbourhood of Bodyke. Twelve men were arrested by the police on that occasion; they were brought up at the Petty Sessions of Tomgrauy, before two Resident Magistrates—but not under the Crimes Act—aud charged with having been part of this riotous assembly. The two Magistrates held that the prisoners ought to be returned for trial, as they were charged with an indictable offence. One of the Magistrates, Mr. Hodder, said that if the prisoners were tried in any other county in Ireland but Clare they would be sent for trial and would receive long periods of imprisonment. Mr. Hodder, whom he knew personally, was one of the most cautious and careful men that ever held the position of Resident Magistrate; and if Mr. Hodder said that, he was bound to believe that the case was not one that should be lightly dismissed. The Magistrates had said that there was a primâ facie case against these men, and that they ought to be returned for trial. What happened? The Police Inspector intervened, and said that that course had not been satisfactory in the past.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, it was quite impossible that all the newspapers should have invented a speech for the Police Inspector, and he thought it was high time that the policy of blaming the reporters should cease. The Police Inspector said that the procedure of re- 1354 turning men for trial had not been satisfactory in the past. He was right, whether he said it or not. Beyond all doubt this method of procedure had not been satisfactory in the past. It was beyond yea or nay that the only result in all the cases of agrarian crime which came before the Assizes was the discharge of the prisoners. In the case at Tomgrany the Police Inspector suggested that the men should be bound over to keep the peace. What did that action on the part of the Crown amount to? It amounted to this: that in all agrarian cases there should be no prisoners returned for trial. That mode of stopping the supply of criminals was certainly novel. It was laid down—probably by the Irish Attorney General or the Irish Solicitor General—that men guilty of agrarian offences in Clare were not to be sent to the Assizes, but were to be bound over under the ordinary law to keep the peace. That was a dangerous step to take in Clare. Of all the counties in Ireland Clare was the last place in which a new departure of that kind should be made, and he would look with some interest to the explanation which the Chief Secretary would give in the matter. He now came to another place —Limerick. The Chief Secretary had referred to the dark area of Clare, Limerick, and Kerry. Some weeks ago he brought under the notice of the Chief Secretary by a question a meeting of the National League and a meeting of the National Federation, in Limerick, both convened for the express purpose of protesting against some evicted land in the neighbourhood of the city being taken by a Mr. Bateman and by the representative of a Building Society for building purposes. Both meetings resolved that if the lauds were not given up circulars should be issued to the customers of Mr. Bateman, amongst the farmers of Limerick and Clare; and The Limerick Leader, the leading Nationalist organ of the locality, declared that if Mr. Bateman and his friends did not take this fair notice they would have to take the cost. Mr. Bateman and his friends did not take this notice, fair or unfair; they insisted on their legal right to take land in the neighbourhood of Limerick, and they continued to hold possession in spite of the Federation and the League. These rival Nationalist Organisations were as 1355 good as their word. They both issued circulars directed to the customers of Mr. Bateman, who was a victualler or butcher in Limerick, and against the travellers of Messrs. Denny and Son, who were mixed up some way in the matter; and as the circulars had not the effect of inducing these men to give up the land, the Organisation had taken to posting boycotting notices on the walls. On the Sunday morning of last week about 2 o'clock two constables were out on duty. They found three men standing near a hoarding, or place where bills were posted, two of whom ran away, and they arrested the third. The man when arrested at once threw away a packet of papers, which were found to be boycotting notices. He was brought up at the Limerick Petty Sessions. There were nine Magistrates on the Bench. There was no question about the identity of the prisoner. In fact, no defence was raised. A letter was put in evidence. It was addressed to Samuel Frost, a boy in the employment of Mr. Bateman, whose duty it was to visit the disputed land to see after the stock. The letter was dated 3rd June and ran—
If you go out to Miss Morrison's land again, look out! Our city is not going to be disgraced by you grabbers; and, by God! if you go there again, there will be too much proof that you were there.Everyone who knew anything of Ireland knew that by that notice the young man's life was threatened. And yet, in spite of that threatening notice; in spite of this prisoner having been arrested with boycotting notices in his possession; in spite of their being no defence, this Bench of Nationalist Magistrates refused to send the case for trial. The man was discharged, and walked out of Court.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the charge was posting boycotting notices. But the Crown Solicitor stated that he attended to prosecute by direction of the Attorney General; and why the man was charged with posting the notices was a question the hon. Member would have to settle with The MacDermott. The Attorney General would not have directed the Crown Solicitor to prosecute unless there was an offence. And surely it was an offence to be found with boycotting notices near a hoarding from 1356 which the police had previously pulled down similar notices. No doubt the Chief Secretary would say—"What power have I over these Limerick Magistrates?" But his charge against the right hon. Gentleman was that he had deliberately divested himself of the power of dealing with offences of that kind. If the right hon. Gentleman only availed himself of the Act that he found on the Statute Book, and in operation when he came into Office, he would be able to have those prisoners in Clare and Kerry tried by two Resident Magistrates, and summarily awarded from one to six months' imprisonment. He would now briefly refer to the question of the classification of crime by the Irish Office, and also to some comments made upon it by the Judges at Assizes. He had asked the Chief Secretary the other day why the attempt to murder Mr. Blood should have been put down as intimidation. The right hon. Gentleman replied that the question was a very natural one, but that the fact of the matter was that the shot had been fired at such a distance that Mr. Blood could not have been injured by it, and that it could not, therefore, have been an attempt to murder. What were the facts? He had them in a letter from Clare written by a person who probably knew more of the case than anyone else. On the occasion when Mr. Blood was last fired at he was fired at from a Snider rifle at 400 yards distance, and the Chief Secretary said it was put down as intimidation because the shot could have no effect. In 1887 Mr. Blood was fired at from a Snider rifle at 500 yards distance, and it was put down as an attempt to murder. The right hon. Gentleman said that no change had been made in the classification of crime, notwithstanding the facts that in 1887 a shot fired at 500 yards distance was put down as an attempt to murder, while a shot fired in 1893 at 400 yards was put down as intimidation because, forsooth, it was fired at so great a distance. The right hon. Gentleman's classification might be the right one, but there was a change.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLOf course, I do not charge the right hon. Gentleman with having interested himself personally in this matter.
MR. J. MORLEYThe men are the same, the principles are the same, and the practice is the same. I did not meddle in the matter one way or the other.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman must not say that, because he would have to meddle in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the government of Ireland. In his Charge to the Grand Jury at Maryborough, Mr. Justice O'Brien said that in the Return made to him by the Constabulary there was only one case of arson; but before the Grand Jury there were nine cases of malicious burning. Mr. Justice O'Brien did not say that there had been any change in the classification of crimes, but simply that the Police Returns did not accurately represent the facts. That was a perfectly legitimate statement to make. When this question was last before the House an hon. Gentleman had asked whether the English Judges had these Returns placed before them, and whether English Judges made charges of the kind. As a matter of fact, the English Judges had not these facts before them. They had the Chief Constables' Returns of the actual crime before them, and it was with that they dealt in their Charges to the Grand Juries. But in England the great bulk of the crime was made amenable, and in Ireland, in many counties, the great bulk of the crime was not made amenable. If the Judges in Ireland did not know what crimes had been committed in respect of which there were no prisoners before them, they would have nothing to go upon in addressing the Grand Jury on the actual condition of the county. The defence set up by the Chief Secretary was that these cases of burning were not entered on the Police Report unless the Constabulary were certain that they were malicious. But they must go to the Grand Jury for that question to be decided; and then it would be too late for the Judge to include them in his Charge, because the Judge would have gone away. The hon. Member for Shipley suggested that a number of people fired their own premises in order to get compensation. That would be a worse outrage than malicious burning, and at any rate it did not remove the cases from the list of crimes. Such cases ought to be on the sheet laid before the 1358 Judge; and if they were placed on the sheet till the Grand Jury had decided whether or not they were malicious, they would never appear, for by that time the Assizes would have been over.
§ MR. SEXTONThey are not agrarian outrages.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that might be, but all the same they ought to be on the Return. His contention was that the Judges, not finding these cases on the Returns, were justified in calling the attention of the Grand Jury to the fact. It was not fair for the Chief Secretary to charge the Judges—who had simply complained, as they had a right to do, that the Police Reports were not accurate—with attacking the Executive. They were doing nothing of the kind. At the Kilkenny Assizes there was a case which the Police Inspector had not put on the Return at all. There was a Unionist meeting. It was held at Waterford before those Assizes, was attended by the Rev. Mr. Power, the incumbent of Kilkenny Parish, and by two of his parishioners. Everyone would admit that they had a right to go to this meeting without being punished. But what happened? Mr. Power's church windows were broken, and boycotting notices were posted on the houses of the two parishioners, cautioning people to hold no intercourse with them. That was the freedom of opinion they had in certain parts of Ireland. The Police Inspector did not report a word of this to the Judge. He wished to protest against such tyranny. Were Unionists to be able to attend religious services and political meetings only by the consent and grace of the Nationalists? Some years ago he should have had the enthusiastic support of the present Chief Secretary in his protest.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked why he had not that support now? The position he took up was not that there had been a change in the classification of crime since the Government came into Office. What he said was that the Irish Judges ought not to have been attacked by the Treasury Bench, as they were attacked, because they simply declared that the Returns laid before them by the Constabulary were not accurate representations of the facts. There was another matter to which he wished to 1359 refer. At the beginning of the Session the Chief Secretary made considerable changes in the constitution of Asylums Boards by putting on a considerable number of Roman Catholics. The right hon. Gentleman was attacked for his action. But he did not join in those attacks, as he believed the right hon. Gentleman to be perfectly justified by his defence that the Roman Catholics were not represented on those Boards according to their numbers. But he asked the right hon. Gentleman's attention to County Down. In that county there were 106,000 Presbyterians, 73,000 Roman Catholics, and 65,000 Protestant Episcopalians. According to the theory of the right hon. Gentleman, the Presbyterians ought to have had a majority on the County Asylums Board; but, while the Episcopalians had nine representatives and the Roman Catholics six, the Presbyterians had only two. Upon what theory had the right hon. Gentleman constructed that Board? Presumably it was because the Presbyterians were opponents of the Government that their representation was so small. He supposed it was thought the Presbyterians could be trampled on with impunity. But they could not. He asked the right hon. Gentleman also why it was that a loading man among the Presbyterians—Mr. R. S. Corbett, J.P.—and a Unionist candidate for South Down at the Election of 1886 was dismissed from the Asylums Board? The last question which he wished to raise he only brought forward from a sense of duty. He had done his best to have the matter settled outside the House, but he had failed. It was the case of one of the candidates for a Professorship in the Marlborough Street Training College, Dublin. Marlborough Street College was established very shortly after the National system of education was brought into existence, and for a very long time it was the only College where teachers could get trained. It was a strictly undenominational College. As years went on the denominationalists succeeded in getting Training Colleges of their own—two Roman Catholic and one Episcopalian. The College in Marlborough Street was left on its undenominational basis, and was largely attended by Presbyterians and Methodists. Quite recently Professor Joyce, who was at the head of 1360 the College, resigned after a service of 50 years, and his resignation was viewed with regret by all concerned with education in Ireland. It became necessary to elect a successor, and a number of candidates came forward, but it was at last narrowed down to two. He did not know either the one or the other of their religious opinions. Against the moral character of one of these candidates Professors in the College made serious charges. The Board felt themselves compelled to order an investigation, which was held by the two secretaries of the Board. It was proved that Professor Joyce some 10 years ago declined to put this man over a class of girls in the drawing school, and left a Minute to that effect. Two National school teachers gave evidence that they had seen this man in a state of intoxication in the streets of Dublin with people he ought not to have been with. The secretaries acquitted him, and a Minute was passed by the Board to that effect. When he went to an election seven members of the Board voted for and seven against him. The Resident Commissioner, Sir Patrick Keenan, three ex-secretaries, and three other Commissioners voted for him. The Chief Baron, Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, and the Presbyterian and Methodist Commissioners voted against him. The matter came up again, and the votes were six to six. In the meantime the Presbyterian Church sent in a protest against his candidature, and a Presbyterian Commissioner who had voted for him refused to vote in his favour again. The election was then adjourned till October. This matter was first introduced into the House by a question by an hon. Member opposite. On the part of the Presbyterian Church he desired to say that, inasmuch as students of that Church, young men and young women, were attending this Training College, they could not consent to have a man against whom such charges had been made placed over the Institution. If he was, it would result in the breaking up of the College. Even supposing the man had been wrongly charged and that the case was one of suspicion, to put him over such an Institution would be nothing short of a calamity. This undenominational College had maintained its existence under difficulties; it had many opponents, even in the House of 1361 Commons, and he desired that it should I not have to contend against this appointment, but that a Professor should be selected against whom nothing could be alleged. He had brought forward the case now because the election had been adjourned until October, when the House would not be sitting, and on behalf both of Presbyterians and Methodists he protested against this man being forced on the Institution by the Chief Commissioner.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,) Newcastle-upon-TyneI think the last case mentioned by the hon. Member for South Tyrone is really a reductio ad absurdum of the principles on which be and his Section would desire the Irish Administration to be conducted. I am not responsible for the Marlborough Street Training College except in a very narrow Parliamentary sense. Anyone who is acquainted with the history of the relations between the Executive Government and the National Board, certainly from Mr. Forster's time downwards, is aware that the Executive Government as a rule, almost without exception, do not enter into the minute details of the working of those establishments. It would be perfectly impossible to carry on the working of those establishments, and leave the National Board with any free administrative power whatever, if the Chief Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant are to meddle in matters of this kind. Let the House understand what the hon. Member for South Tyrone has just done. Here is a man who is a candidate for a position in this Training College. Charges of an odious kind were brought against that gentleman—as the hon. Member said, the two Secretaries held a long inquiry, extending over four days, into those charges. The Report of those Secretaries, with, I presume, the evidence, was submitted to the Board, and at the end of it the 14 Commissioners present passed a resolution in these very words—
The Commissioners are satisfied of the innocence of this gentleman, and that no imputation rests upon his moral character.I pass no opinion upon the policy or expediency of choosing this gentleman, 1362 but I do say that it is a matter for the deepest regret that any hon. Member in this House should think it right or fair to drag this candidate—who has, at all events, so far as the voting has yet gone, half the Board behind him—should drag him on to the floor of this House and expose this matter to the fierce light of Parliamentary discussion, while, at the same time, no Member of this House has any right to pronounce judgment up mi the man's conduct. I say it is a monstrous thing to seek the intervention of the House of Commons in an affair of this kind at this stage. The final decision of the Commissioners has to be taken in October, and it seems to me to be a monstrous thing to attempt to prejudice their decision by getting up a storm in the House of Commons against this gentleman, while, at the same time, no material is furnished on which the House can form a judgment.
§ MR. SEXTONWas the exonerating resolution passed without a division?
§ MR. J. MORLEYI am very glad my hon. Friend has put that question. The resolution was passed unanimously, though it is quite true that when the Board came to consider on the same occasion whom they should choose seven, voted against the gentleman in question and seven for him; but that division, for aught I know, bearing in mind the previous resolution, was on general grounds. The hon. Member has referred to the Resident Commissioner, and with bad taste, I think. All I can say is, I received, on last Saturday, an account from the Resident Commissioner himself of his share in the transaction, and I learn, that when this gentleman was first proposed Sir Patrick Keenan knew nothing whatever about these charges. I need not go into the question of the appointment. That is a matter for the National Board to determine. I can quite imagine they may feel that if the Presbyterian Church adheres to the resolution since passed, it may be open to doubt whether it would be politic to appoint this gentleman; but I hold that it would not be proper that, any Church, without producing any kind of evidence of the reasons upon which they found their 1363 exclusion, should have the opportunity of preventing the Commissioners from choosing the man whom they think best fitted for the post. Now I will pass to the other matters which the hon. Member thought fit to raise in connection with the Irish Administration. The hon. Member began with a reference to certain disturbances at Bundoran, and he made a very passionate and loud appeal as to the free exercise by the subjects of the Queen of their right to proselytise.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLThat is not a fair observation. I said nothing about proselytising.
§ MR. J. MORLEYI will withdraw the word proselytise, and will say, of their rights to preach. There is no difference of opinion between the hon. Member and myself on the principles of the right of freedom of political and religious meetings as now expressed by the hon. Member. I only wish that the hon. Member had bethought himself of those principles during the last six years. The hon. Member quoted from a leading article in a paper called The Donegal Vindicator with reference to the Evangelists, and said the Government must have known that it would lead to disturbance, and why, then, did they not make extra provision? But the Executive Government did make extra provision. They sent 25 extra men to Bundoran before the proceedings in the Evangelist tent began. As for the hon. Member's account of what did happen, it really was one of the grossest bits of exaggeration that I have ever heard, even from Ireland. I have read all the official Reports on the subject, and there was not a word about 1,000 men having come in for the purpose mentioned, or for any purpose. There was no doubt a crowd gathered round the tent, but, though the circumstances were exciting, the police were perfectly able to preserve the peace. There was, no doubt, an attack on Mr. Templeman, and some rudeness was offered to his sister; but, as I understand, it was rather of a gallant than of a controversial character. She very properly resented it, and a scuffle arose, but it was entirely unconnected 1364 with any general view as to the preaching in the tent. It was a personal scuffle, and so far from lasting an hour, as the hon. Member said, ray information is that it did not last more than a couple of minutes.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he spoke of the general disturbance attending the tent service.
§ MR. J. MORLEYThis was the only disturbance that took place.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, there were two separate disturbances.
§ MR. J. MORLEYI think I have road the papers more carefully than the hon. Member, and that is not so.
§ MR. MACARTNEYThere were none of the police present.
§ MR. J. MORLEYsaid, they were not in the very area where the assault on Miss Templeman took place; but they were effectually preserving the general peace in the crowd round the tent.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, Mr. Templeman was coming from evening service at the church to the tent when he was assaulted.
§ MR. J. MORLEYQuite true, but he found himself in this crowd round the tent.
§ MR. MACARTNEY AND MR. T. W. RUSSELLNot at all.
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ MR. J. MORLEYMr. Templeman found himself in the crowd drawn together by the services. It was asked why the police did not arrest the persons concerned in the assault on Mr. Templeman. As I have said, the assault on the lady took place in a very limited area, and when the police got to the spot the persons concerned had got away; but they arrested three persons connected with the general uproar, and I am told that it was nothing more than an uproar. There is one fact to which I wish to call the attention of the House after hearing the language of the hon. Member about 1,000 men coming to suppress the freedom of preaching at Bundoran, and that is the fact that there has been a 1365 service conducted in that tent by Evangelists every evening since, and there has not been a trace of disturbance or interference with them. What becomes of all the highly-coloured pictures which the hon. Member drew of the attempt in Bundoran to put down freedom of preaching and of religious service? I am told that there are both Catholics and Protestants in Bundoran who were sorry that the Evangelists had come there; but since the first disturbance, which was accidental and productive of no serious injury, everything has been tranquil. What is the good, merely for the sake of getting a small crumb of political capital, of stirring up the dying embers of religious prejudice, as the hon. Member did when he began his speech? With regard to the complaint of the hon. Member in reference to the Gweedore cess, he wanted to know why we have not ordered the Constabulary to execute warrants for the collection of the county cess? I am not aware of the precise facts connected with Gweedore; but I hold strongly the view—I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman opposite thought when he was in Office—that at all events this case needs very careful examination; it is very doubtful whether it is wise to issue these warrants to the Constabulary. I think it would be a very bad precedent, and I dispute the hon. Gentleman's doctrine that it is the duty of the Executive Government to order the Constabulary in all cases to execute warrants for the collection of the county cess.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he simply asked whether the Government were going to do anything, or whether they were going to let those people go scot free who were responsible for the murder of District Inspector Martin?
§ MR. J. MORLEYThat is the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman approaches this very narrow point of administration.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLThe cess is for Inspector Martin's widow.
§ MR. J. MORLEYThe point which the hon. Gentleman has attacked the Government for has nothing to do with the origin of the imposition of this county cess. It is a small matter of adminis- 1366 trative detail, and in the reference he has made to this lamentable event of the death of Inspector Martin he has tried to stir up political prejudice, just as before he tried to stir the religious passions of gentlemen opposite, though I am glad to say the attempt did not succeed. Then the hon. Member went into County Clare, and told the House that a Resident Magistrate, Mr. Hodder, used certain language as to the propriety of the proceedings which were taken against a certain number of persons who were charged at Bodyke, and, with astonishing courage, stated that District Inspector Feeley used language of a somewhat similar kind—namely, that it was no use sending prisoners for trial in County Clare. Now, I have here before me an explicit and categorical denial from Inspector Feeley that he used a single word of the language imputed to him by the hon. Member. The hon. Member seems to have expected that some such denial would be forthcoming, for he said that the view he put forward was right, whether the District Inspector used the language or not. That is the way in which the hon. Gentleman argues as to the demerits of the Irish Administration. The hon. Member said that the language used by the Resident Magistrate, Mr. Hodder, is a proof that the Government are taking a now departure, and, instead of sending cases for trial, are getting minor notice taken of misdeeds of the kind referred to. The hon. Member was kind enough to exculpate me, and said the responsibility for this action must lie with the Attorney General and the Divisional Commissioner. Now let me say, once for all, that it is entirely on myself that the responsibility lies, and I cannot let the Attorney General or the Divisional Commissioner rest for a moment under what the hon. Member regards as a charge. Most of the proceedings of this kind are taken on my own personal responsibility, and I am here to answer for all that is done in these matters. If the hon. Member had been a little more careful he would have seen that even if the men in question had been committed for trial, they would not have been tried at Ennis at all, but at the Winter Assizes in Cork, so that the Government lost nothing by giving up the power of change of venue. Mr. Hodder, 1367 experienced and learned as he is—and he is a gentleman of whose legal competence both the Lord Lieutenant and myself are satisfied—seems to have thought that because charges in the order book clearly showed that an indictable offence had been committed, it was not, therefore, in his power to bind the defendants to the peace. If Mr. Hodder used language of that kind he was mistaken, because if persons charged with an indictable offence are brought before a Magistrate, and if in the opinion of the prosecuting counsel the facts do not disclose circumstances of such gravity as to justify the committal of the defendants for trial, the Magistrate has it within his power to bind the defendants to keep the peace under his ordinary commission. That is the clear law of the matter. Mr. Hodder, owing to an inadvertence of the Petty Sessions Clerk, mistook the form of summons under which the men had been brought up. The latter part of the summons, calling on the defendants to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace, was omitted from the order book; and Mr. Hodder's remarks, as far as I understand from his own Report, were based on a misconception; and on referring to the summons itself he saw at once that the course proposed by the District Inspector was a perfectly regular one. As for the offence itself, obstruction of the police, especially in cases like that of Bodyke, is a very serious matter, and you cannot afford to trifle with obstruction and resistance to the police in a place like Bodyke. But I am bound to say that the facts of the case are not of such gravity as necessarily made a committal for trial with a heavy sentence the only way of dealing with it. There may be circumstances under which the most trifling breach of the peace deserves to be severely dealt with; but such circumstances were not present in this case. I recapitulated these circumstances in answer to a question, but I will recapitulate them briefly again. Two caretakers, with their police escort, went out for the purpose of occupying evicted farms. When they arrived at a certain townland they made a delay of a few minutes; and, as is likely to happen in such a case, a crowd assembled, several members of which hooted and groaned at the caretakers. On the police 1368 cautioning the crowd, most of them desisted; but some half-dozen persisted in following the caretakers. These few persons were afterwards joined by a number of children, and in the result three stones were thrown in the direction of the caretakers and the police; but nobody was struck by them. The police then warned the people that they would use force if they did not disperse, and the crowd then dispersed. The circumstances were reported to the authorities, who directed that any persons who could be identified as having taken part in the stone - throwing should be proceeded against, with a view to having them bound over, and the Judicial Commissioner approved of that course. The hon. Member thinks there has been a great miscarriage of justice, and yet these are the facts.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI am simply acting on what Mr. Hodder is reported to have stated.
§ MR. J. MORLEYThe report in the newspapers, I am informed, is not accurate; but apart from that, in matters of this kind, the judgment of the Divisional Commissioner, representing the Executive Government, is more important, and ought to weigh more with the House of Commons as to the precise amount of gravity of the wrong done, than the dictum of a Magistrate. It is a most dangerous thing to get into the habit of quoting the dicta either of Magistrates or Judges as to the course the Executive Government should take. I have no more to say with regard to that Tomgreaney case. With regard to the case of Doyle of Limerick, the man who was found with the boycotting notice in his possession, he was arrested by the police and taken before a Bench of 10 Magistrates, five of whom refused to convict, four of whom took the opposite view, and one of whom refused to take any part in the proceedings. The hon. Member finds fault with me because I have not overruled the decision of the five Magistrates; but the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary throughout his administration took the very opposite view. He always said—and no one doubted that what he said was perfectly 1369 true—that the Executive Government did not interfere with magisterial discretion, and he should regard it as the gravest and the grossest impropriety if he attempted anything of the kind. Are we to decide off-hand? Are we to say all the Magistrates acted wrongly, and immediately take fresh proceedings? I told the hon. Member that it is still a matter for consideration, and then the hon. Member's reply was—"Ah, you now begin to consider it, because I am bringing down the House of Commons on you." With all respect to the House of Commons, I do not think that even that Assembly would make the Executive Government in Ireland undertake proceedings of that kind; and I do not think the House of Commons, the more they understand these proceedings and the spirit in which the hon. Member has brought forward this case, will impugn the action of the Irish Executive Government. The hon. Member was entirely wrong, in connection with this case, in his account of what he called my divesting myself of powers given by the Crimes Act. It is not so, because he forgets that one of the boasts of his own friends when they left Office was that they had practically dropped the Crimes Act. What certainly is true is that they had dropped that portion of the Crimes Act which many of those who supported them in their administration and otherwise considered the most valuable part—namely, summary jurisdiction for boycotting notices, intimidation, and so forth. That part of the Crimes Act was dropped before we came into Office. As for the powers of summary jurisdiction in cases of not and unlawful assembly, these powers remain intact, and therefore the hon. Member was not at all accurate. Then, with regard to the classification of offences, the hon. Member and those who agree with him in Irish matters persist in the suspicion that somehow or other a great change has taken place in the system of classification. What was the proof he put forward? It was one of the most remarkable that even the hon. Member's ingenious mind could devise. He referred to the shooting at Mr. Blood, and said the outrage was not recorded as an attempted murder because the shots were fired at a distance of 400 yards, 1370 while under the Chief Secretaryship of the right hon. Member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) a case was so recorded, although the shots were fired from 500 yards; and, therefore, there must have been a revolution in the system of classifying these cases, because, forsooth, a rough guess fixes one distance at 400 yards and another at 500 yards!
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLIt could not be a rough guess, because a Snider rifle was dropped on the spot, and the distance was accurately measured.
§ MR. J. MORLEYI was at the place the other day, and in this case there was no Snider rifle found at all, and no kind of rifle or any other weapon was found. There may have been in the case which occurred during the Chief Secretaryship of the Member for Bristol. But can anything be more childish or frivolous in the way of proof that there has been a revolution in the system of classification in the interests of the present Government than to state that there was this discrepancy of 100 yards in a rough guess as to distance?
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI find I am wrong in saying that a Snider rifle was found. A cartridge case of a Snider rifle and the tracks of two men were found at a certain point—
§ MR. SEXTONIn which case—this or the former?
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLAnd that is a matter of proof very nearly as good as a rifle.
§ MR. J. MORLEYThe House will see that this serious charge, or rather innuendo, because it has not yet taken the shape of a charge, as to a revolution in classification rests on proof of that kind, which is really so childish that it is not worth detaining the House upon it. The hon. Member also referred to some remarks made by the Lord Chief Justice, and he said that the Lord Chief Justice had never stated that there was a change of system of classification. I am not sure as to that, because I have not had time to read through his words; but my impression was that there was some indication 1371 of that kind. The hon. Member accuses me of attacking the Judges. I have not attacked them; but what I have said—and I shall certainly always repeat it—is that the course taken by this learned Judge in cross-examining the County Inspector in open Court in Clonmel the other day was a course open to grave objection. That was all I said. Unlike the hon. Member, I may have strong feelings, but I do not like using violent and strong language, otherwise stronger language than that might have been used. But this is what strikes me as curious: that though the Lord Chief Justice has had a great deal to do with the administration of the law in Ireland for a number of years, he has never found out until now that there is anything faulty or defective in the system of classification. Everybody who has anything to do with the administration of the law in Ireland, every County Inspector who has to make Returns to the Judges, knows perfectly well that there has been no change, not an iota of change in the classification, and that precisely the same material has been presented to the Judges and in the same form during the last 12 months as has been the practice and custom to present through a good many 12 months before; and I may say that I do not think it adds to the notion of the impartiality which people like to see, especially in Ireland, among those who administer the law that these remarks should, for the first time, have been made after a change of Government. Now, Sir, the last point raised by the hon. Member was in respect of the Governors of lunatic asylums. With respect to the names of Governors of the lunatic asylum of the County Down the hon. Member tells us—and I think rightly—that there are in County Down 106,000 Presbyterians, 65,000 members of the Church of Ireland, and 73,000 Roman Catholics, and that there are six Governors who are Roman Catholics, nine who are members of the Church of Ireland, and only two who are Presbyterians. Now, upon that matter I can only say that the appointments on those Boards all over Ireland was an extremely laborious and very difficult task. I felt it to be our duty to undertake that task, because it seemed to me—and here I believe the hon. Member agrees with me 1372 —[Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Hear, hear!]—that it was our duty to undertake that task, because it is a monstrous thing that in nearly all the counties in Ireland where the percentage of Roman Catholics in the population was enormous that yet on the Boards of Governors, consisting of 20 or 25 gentlemen, sometimes not more than one or two Roman Catholics were members. I do not believe any Member in the House—neither the Member for North Armagh nor the Member for South Belfast—would deny that it was time to put an end to that state of things. Very little fault, I am bound to say, has been found with our nominations, difficult though the task was. We may have made some oversights in the matter of County Down, and I may say here that perhaps I did not draw a sufficient distinction between the members of the Church of Ireland and the Presbyterians. Wanting to make up the balance between Roman Catholics and Protestants, I admit I did not sufficiently recognise the difference between the Protestant denominations; but as to the hon. Member saying that I desired to trample upon the Presbyterians, I can only say that is an instance of the exaggeration which has pervaded the whole of his speech this afternoon. He knows very well that I have no desire whatever to trample upon the Presbyterians, any more than upon the Episcopalians or the Roman Catholics. As to the dismissal of certain gentlemen, I cannot, of course, say off-hand what the circumstances were. I repeat, that in the case of the County Down and in all other cases of the kind we did the best we could. In one or two instances, or perhaps in three or four instances, oversights were pointed out to us, and I believe in most of those cases we have repaired those oversights so far as we could. I can only say that I will do the best I can in the next revision to redress the balance, and give the Presbyterians their fair share of representation. The hon. Member has not opened up the general question of the state of Ireland. If he had gone through the Judges' Charges at the recent Assizes he would find—and the House will be glad to know it—that, excepting a very small area, which is certainly far from satisfactory, in the case of 33 Judges' Charges the report is as satisfactory as possibly could be, and 1373 that the improvement in the condition of Ireland and the course of restoration to peace and order, which began, I am quite willing to admit, under the right hon. Gentleman opposite, has gone on through an unbroken progress, and the improvement is every month continued.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR () Manchester, E.I think the House will have derived great satisfaction from the closing sentences of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The perennial problem of dealing with Irish crime is one which must cause great anxiety to whoever is responsible to this House for the administration of Irish affairs, and I am perfectly certain that no man feels the weight of that responsibility more than the right hon. Gentleman himself. I do not propose to enter into a minute survey of the controversy between the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone; but I will deal only with three or four points which have been raised. The first of these relates to the collection of the county cess in that part of Donegal where I learn—I was not aware of it before—that for some years past no county cess has been collected. The right hon. Gentleman declines to admit that he is bound to entrust the collection to the Constabulary in the event of the ordinary officials failing to collect it. With that general proposition I am not inclined to quarrel. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down, but all my hon. Friend said was that if the county cess was not collected because its collection involved some controversy connected with Irish politics or agrarian crime, then the Executive Government ought to consider seriously whether they could allow the duty of paying the local rates to fall into abeyance, or whether they would take steps to enforce it. It is a very serious responsibility to allow the county cess in any district to be repudiated year after year. With regard to what took place before Mr. Hodder, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has given an accurate version of what that gentleman said and what the Constabulary officer said; but the reason why my hon. Friend 1374 brought that case before the House was that it appeared to him that the Government were anxious to avoid bringing certain cases to trial, and that their anxiety not to do so was justified by the fact that whenever cases had been sent to trial in that particular county no attempt had been made by the juries to do justice. Perhaps I should say, in any case arising out of an agrarian quarrel, there has been no attempt at the last two Assizes on the part of Clare juries to execute their bounden duty. That was ample justification for my hon. Friend and others interested in Ireland to watch with critical eye every step taken which might throw light on the policy of the Government in relation to these Assizes. As to the question of classification, I accept fully the statement of the Chief Secretary that there has been no change of policy whatever. But, Sir, I think the right hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstood the particular case my hon. Friend brought forward with regard to Mr. Blood. He mentioned that this unfortunate gentleman had been fired at three times. On two occasions the shot was fired at long ranges with a Snider rifle, and one of the Returns made was "attempted murder," and the other "intimidation." I agree that no great weight ought to be laid on the difference between 400 and 500 yards; but unless it can be shown that in the second case there were circumstances connected with the firing of the shot which obviously proved that it was not intended to take effect, I do say that, whether the principle of classification has been changed or not, to put the case down as one of simple intimidation is absolutely absurd. I do not know how high the courage of hon. Gentlemen in this House mounts; but I know I do not wish to be fired at from a distance of 400 yards by a Snider rifle, and should resent such an attempt being put down merely as intimidation, and not attempted murder. The Government may have information in their possession to show that Mr. Blood was not fired at; but, if so, it should be stated. But if the shot was fired at Mr. Blood—whether at 400 or 500 yards—out of a Snider rifle, I say it was wholly ridiculous to describe that attempted assassination as intimidation. That is not the only peculiarity with regard to the classification of crime 1375 brought before us. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated the criticism—I will not use a stronger word—he made on a previous occasion upon the Chief Justice of Ireland. Well, Sir, I understand it to be the duty of a Judge of Assize in Ireland to make himself acquainted with the condition of the counties in which he is carrying on trials with regard to serious crime. If it be admitted that that is his duty, I cannot see how he is to perform it unless he be permitted to examine the officer who makes the Returns; and if all that can be alleged against the Chief Justice is that he so carried out his duty, I fail absolutely to understand on what principle the right hon. Gentleman objects to that system on which the action of this distinguished Judge was based. But I go further—
§ MR. J. MORLEYPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain that hitherto these interviews between the Judge of Assize and the officer have been private; on the present occasion, for the first time, the cross-examination was made in open Court.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have not present in my mind all the particulars, nor do I know what the special justification for any change of procedure may be, if change of procedure occurred; but, on the broad principle I have already mentioned, I cannot see that there is any room for attacking the Chief Justice. But I go further, for it appears that the result of the learned Judge's examination, whether public or private, was to show that two or three serious errors had occurred. I think my hon. Friend has done well in calling attention to these important matters, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that we could not have ascertained this had the examination not taken place.
§ MR. J. MORLEYwas understood to assent.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe Chief Justice said the Inspector was quite right in what he had done; but there was a mistake—probably in accordance with the regulations—with regard to a case of intimidation, which did not 1376 appear in the statistics, which could only be brought out by this examination by the Judge of Assize of the officer responsible. It must be admitted that if a case of serious crime was not before him when it ought to have been, the Chief Justice was justified in asking for particulars. No one would, of course, say that there was any desire on the part of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Morley) to cook the statistics. It is clear, I think, that public benefit has been derived from calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that very serious mistakes have occurred with regard to the enumeration and classification of these cases. That is all I desire to say on the subject. I think the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that my hon. Friend has done well to call attention to this matter. I will only say, in conclusion, one word, repeating the congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman—and not to him only but to the House—on what we are assured is the improved condition of social life in the disturbed districts.
§ SIR T. ESMONDE () Kerry, W.said, he had intended to bring forward the question of Irish light railways; but there were only a few minutes left to them, and he could not do so at any length. He would, however, call attention to the burdens which had been cast upon the cesspayers of his constituency in connection with the construction and working of the Tralee and Dingle Light Railway. There could be no doubt that the construction of light railways had been a great convenience to many localities; but in some districts they had been badly constructed and badly managed, with the result that cesspayers who guaranteed a portion of the interest on the capital of the undertaking were saddled with heavy financial burdens, representing, with local taxation, between 5s. and 6s. in the £1 on the Poor Law valuation. The line was 36 miles in length, and cost £120,000. The tax was a very serious matter for the people, who had no voice in the management of the line. It was constructed under the County Kerry Grand Jury, and passed by the Board of Works in Ireland and 1377 the Board of Trade. But the people of the district had no more to say to the construction of the line than to railways in the moon. There was no idea at the time of the project passing that the liabilities would be so great. There was one way of meeting the difficulty. His (Sir T. Esmonde's) Colleagues and himself had introduced a Bill dealing with the Irish Light Railways, which had passed the Second Heading, and he would ask the Government to take it up and endeavour to carry it into law. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would remember that the Bill had passed its Second Reading. They (the Nationalist Party) were not tied to the drastic provisions of this Bill. They only wished to obtain some further relief for those concerned in the working of these railways. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman representing the Government should consider whether they could adopt the view of the people of the district and of the Irish Members. He hoped they would have an assurance that the Government were prepared to take up the Bill and carry it through.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,) Oldhamsaid, the matter referred to by the hon. Baronet had been the subject of discussion between the Irish Government, the Treasury, and the Irish Board of Works, with a view to considering whether any plan could be adopted so as to relieve the pressure on the cesspayers in the districts in which the light railways existed, and so meet the wish of the hon. Member and his friends. At the same time, he must remind his hon. Friend that this scheme had been passed by the Grand Jury, and had been carried out on the strength of the guarantee.
§ SIR T. ESMONDEsaid, they only guaranteed a proportion.
§ SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he might soon be able to state how far they could go. It was a question as to how far the Irish Government and the Treasury could agree upon the proposals to carry out the object in view.
§ MR. MACARTNEY () Antrim, S.said, there wore proposals in the Bill 1378 which had been mentioned by the hon Baronet which were, in his opinion, open to serious objection. He would not discuss them, however. He merely rose to revert for a moment or two to the question which had been before the House prior to that which had just been raised He was not surprised at the attitude of the Chief Secretary towards the late Administration. It was an extremely convenient course for him to adopt, and could be taken in connection with the "angelic theory" of which they had heard so much during the past few months. He could say, however, that the information given to the Chief Secretary was not prepared in accordance with the immediate facts of the Bundoran ease. There could be no doubt that the arrangements made by the Constabulary were absolutely insufficient, and they failed after due notice had been given to the police. The local Nationalist organ, used the most inflammable language for the purpose of inciting the passions of the people. He did not care whether The Vindicator was right or the Constabulary was right. One fact remained—that the disturbance took place. He (Mr. Macartney) had had a report sent him by an eye-witness, who stated that Mr. Templeman and his sister—the lady who accompanied him—were attacked as they were coming not from the Evangelistic services, but from the church. Some 200 or 300 roughs had been drinking in the neighbour hood; and some of them insulted the lady, and the disturbance then arose. The right hon. Gentleman had no information about what happened; he could not have any, as there were no police about at the time. They were engaged elsewhere. He thought they were justified—
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
§ Question put accordingly, and agreed to.