§ MR. ROSS (Londonderry)With the permission of the House I wish to explain the course I have determined to adopt under circumstances which the House will admit are particularly embarrassing to a junior Member like myself. I wish to say, Sir, it was never my intention to allude to one fact or to one circumstance that had come within my knowledge as counsel in the case alluded to. I am sure members of my profession who are acquainted with me, on both sides of the House, will bear me out when I say that is a thing of which I should be quite incapable. I had intended to allude to acts which were notorious, and to the public conduct of a Minister in his executive capacity; but, inasmuch as I see so high an authority as the Attorney General for England has some doubt as to whether my interference in this matter would be professional, I do not wish to imperil the great traditions of the great profession to which I have the honour to belong; 1067 and accordingly, Sir, I confine myself merely to formally moving the Amendment which stands in my name.
§ SIR FREDERICK MILNER (Notts,) Bassetlaw, in seconding the Amendment, said, he was not surprised at the anxiety which had been displayed to prevent the hon. Member dealing with the case of the Gweedore prisoners, because it was known he had a very powerful case to bring forward. It was part and parcel of an endeavour on the part of Ministers and of the House generally to shirk discussion upon this question, because they had a weak case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the previous night endeavoured to force on the Debate at an hour when it was impossible for any report of the discussion to be given, and he endeavoured to throw the onus of obstruction on the Opposition. The public, however, would recognise the right hon. Gentleman's action as an attempt to prevent this question being discussed by the House. Hon. Members had already heard an indictment of the Gweedore prisoners from the late Attorney General for Ireland, and the defence put forward in the House by the Chief Secretary; and in the House of Lords the Lord Chancellor had demonstrated the weakness of the case of the Government more powerfully than even the strong indictment of the late Attorney General. In releasing the Gweedore prisoners, the Government had acted in an unconstitutional and unprecedented manner. In cases of a revision of sentences the opinion of the Judge was always asked before anything was done; but the Government had admitted that in this case they had not taken that course, therefore their action was both unconstitutional and unprecedented. The reason stated in the other House for not obtaining the opinion of the Judge was that the Government did not wish to put him to the trouble of going into the case. They were told by the Lord Chancellor in the Debate in the other House that the object of punishment was to deter offenders from repeating their offences, and others from imitating them. He entirely concurred in that statement. But did the House think the course adopted by the Chief Secretary would act as a deterrent to gentlemen who had a homicidal mania towards policemen? He thought that, instead of deterring 1068 them, it would act directly as an encouragement. They would argue that if, for the brutal murder of a policeman, for dancing on his body and crushing in his the skull, they only got three years, then if they knocked a policeman down and only injured him a little they would not get any punishment at all. That was the logical conclusion to be drawn from the mistaken clemency shown to these men. He had been puzzled at the extraordinary tenderness developed in the bosoms of the Chief Secretary and the Lord Chancellor for Irish criminals. Did they think, as was once suggested by the Prime Minister, that they were endowed with a double dose of original sin? He would ask the House to contrast the sentences which were passed upon criminals in England for offences against property with the sentences awarded these men for a most brutal murder. In the case of a woman who, some little time back, obtained £3 by false representations, a sentence of five years penal servitude was passed, whilst a man who stole a coat received seven years. It seemed to him the Chief Secretary and the Lord Chancellor were going to differentiate, between offences against property and offences against human life, in favour of the latter. The murder of Inspector Martin was a peculiarly cruel and brutal one; and one deserving less sympathy was never committed in any country. There was only one excuse that could be urged for the men who committed it, and that was that the priest, who ought to have been their guide, comforter, and friend, who ought to have preached peace and goodwill towards men, and taught them their duty to God and their neighbours, proved the falsest friend that ever an unfortunate people were cursed with. He thought it could not be contended otherwise than that the advice given by Father McFadden to his people showed that he was a bad friend to them. Nobody could deny that Father McFadden was a law-breaker and counselled his people to break the law; that he was a member of a criminal conspiracy, and did his best to make his people members of a criminal conspiracy. Father McFadden said that if any attempt were made to arrest him there would be bloodshed, and hon. Members knew the result. He had only alluded to Father 1069 McFadden because his conduct and advice to poor ignorant people were the only possible excuses that could be urged for this brutal murder. He would like to call the attention of the House to a crime which occurred in 1867, and some of the circumstances connected therewith. In that year some Fenian prisoners were being escorted through the town of Manchester when a determined attempt was made to rescue them by some of their brethren. A man placed his pistol to the lock of the prison van and fired with a view to forcing the door. There was no intent to murder or cause injury to anyone, but the bullet struck Sergeant Brett, killing him. These men were tried at Manchester; and although it was not alleged they had the slightest intention to take human life, they were sentenced to death, and the sentence of the law was carried out. A gentleman who was then in that House moved the adjournment of the House in order that some consideration should be shown to the men who had been condemned to death. He was supported by Sir Patrick O'Brien and the late Professor Fawcett, who made a most eloquent and urgent appeal to the then Home Secretary to stay the hand of the law. All they asked for was not that these men should he let off, lost that the sentence of death should be commuted to penal servitude for life, and the present Prime Minister supported the Government in their refusal to allow the sentences to be re-considered. He asked the House could they say that this crime committed at Gweedore was not worse than the crime committed by the Fenian convicts at Manchester? He contended they could not be compared. Sergeant Brett was killed by pure accident, but Inspector Martin was not only knocked down, but he was done to death by these fiends when he was on the ground. A more brutal murder was never perpetrated, and never was clemency shown in a more unworthy case. He had a great respect for the talents of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, whose works in literature had claimed many an hour of his leisure, but he begged to state his opinion that on the Irish Question the Chief Secretary's political morality had been drilled and destroyed by political expediency. He would compare him to a philosopher who had conceived an ideal state of things 1070 and who deemed any methods lawful that enabled him to reach his ideal. If he would give a straightforward answer, as the Home Secretary had done last night, as to why these men were released, he would certainly feel more satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman than he did at the present time. He would urge hon. Members opposite to examine their consciences before voting on this question. They could not deny that a foul and brutal murder had been committed; they could not deny that the men who were convicted were not convicted by a packed jury or by a prejudiced Judge; they could not deny that counsel for the prisoners stated that they got off very cheaply indeed; they could not deny that the Judge, when consulted, did not consider any revision of the sentences should take place; and, lastly, they could not deny that, in the case of the release of these last prisoners, the Judge was not consulted at all as he ought to have been. They had proved to demonstration—and it would be proved still further before the Debate closed—that the exercise of the clemency of the Crown in these cases was a gross abuse of the Royal prerogative of mercy. He trusted they would hear a fuller explanation of it than they had yet had.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Question, to add the words,—"But this House deeply regrets that Your Majesty has been advised to extend the clemency of the Crown to William Coll, Patrick Roarty, Dominic Rodgers, and Connell Magee, who were duly convicted of the manslaughter of District Inspector Martin."—(Mr. Ross.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. W. E. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)said, there were two questions to be considered on this Amendment—whether the Chief Secretary could justify his action in granting the clemency of the Crown to these men, and whether he had not by doing so violated the traditions attaching to the exercise of his office. The right hon. Gentleman had said—or it was said on his behalf—that he had made his defence, and was perfectly content to rest his case on that defence, as he had nothing more to add. He (Mr. Macartney) did not know whether he intended to add anything to-night; but 1071 he was bound to say that the defence already made was not only extremely inconclusive, but was based upon diametrically opposite grounds. He did not intend going in detail into the trial of these prisoners. No one appeared to dispute—there had been no attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to dispute—that a murder of a most cruel character had been committed. All he had suggested was that there was no ground for believing that anyone of the prisoners whom he released was convicted of the death of Inspector Martin; and in another place, he observed, the Lord Chancellor took upon himself to say that unquestionably not one of the men released struck the fatal blow. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman upon what evidence he had formed that opinion, or upon what evidence the Lord Chancellor had formed that opinion? It was certainly not on the evidence given at the trial, because the evidence went to show that everyone of these four men was intimately connected with the struggle going on around Inspector Martin. They were within the death circle, and the only one who left—who was proved to have left—that circle was one who went to engage in a conflict with two other policemen. Would the right hon. Gentleman say what were the grounds upon which he had formed the opinion that these men whom he had released were not to be considered as direct instruments in causing the death of Inspector Martin? He quite admitted that it could not be said with certainty that the fatal blow was struck by any one person—the blow that eventually killed Mr. Martin. But there could be no doubt that the acts of these persons—someone of them or all those acts, the series of acts put together—caused the death of that gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had said he did not consult the Judge who tried the prisoners in regard to the exercise of the clemency of the Crown. He departed from the traditional course, and the reason alleged was that the Judge had been appealed to before, and that he had stated his opinion regarding the cases in such strong terms that it was not deemed necessary to consult him again. If the Judge was appealed to in one case why was he not appealed to in other cases? He (Mr. Macartney) could only account 1072 for that by saying that the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind to take a certain course, and he did not want to appeal to any opinion that might run counter to that course. He appealed to the Lord Chancellor of England. He would like to inquire did the Lord Chancellor know that the Judge who tried the cases in Ireland had not been consulted?
§ MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)He was consulted before.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he was addressing the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and not the hon. Gentleman behind him. What he wanted to know was whether the Lord Chancellor of England was aware that the Judge had not been consulted, and he also wanted to know was the Lord Chancellor of Ireland consulted before the Lord Chancellor of England, and, if not, was the Lord Chancellor of England aware of the fact? The right hon. Gentleman said that, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had formally given his opinion in writing in favour of the release of the prisoners. Was that before the Lord Chancellor of England had been consulted, or was it after the beginning of the Debates in that House? And if the Lord Chancellor or Ireland was consulted, what necessity was there for going to the Lord Chancellor of England? Was the right hon. Gentleman not satisfied with the opinion expressed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland that he felt it necessary to bolster himself up with the opinion of the Lord Chancellor of England to enable him to carry out the release? He thought the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to give some explanation of his conduct on his occasion. He would next draw the attention of the House to the statement made in another place on this question by the Lord Chancellor of England. It was suggested that the release was carried out in order to obtain some political support; but the Lord Chancellor failed to see what political support was to be got by it. How did that agree with the statement made in the House by the Chief Secretary himself, who told them the other night that he considered a wise clemency to be one of the arts of Government? If the right hon. Gentleman held that opinion, surely he exercised his power in this matter as a political act, and the Lord Chancellor aided 1073 him in carrying out the political object he had before him. It was said that the extremely difficult character of the evidence at the trials, especially as to identification, and the fact that sufficient punishment had already been suffered were the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman exercised this clemency. How did that tally with the principles laid down by the Home Secretary on the previous night? It appeared to him (Mr. Macartney) that there was very little distinction to be drawn between the Gweedore prisoners and the prisoners who had been convicted in this country for dynamite outrages; but the right hon. Gentleman's colleague declined to be a party to holding out any hopes for the release of the dynamite prisoners on the ground that he could not feel sure for one moment that there was any less degree of heinousness in their crimes because the motive happened to he political. If they applied the dictum laid down by the Home Secretary to these cases, what was the distinction between these cases and the cases that were under review on the previous day? The defence for all the agitation in Donegal had always been that it was based on a political motive. Agrarian outrages and agitation in Donegal were part of a great political combination in Ireland, and the circumstances under which Father McFadden came into conflict with the Crown, were part of this combination. The result of Father McFadden's refusal to submit to the law was this: that those whom he had for years taught to believe that he was the law, and that the Queen's Writ did not run in Donegal, that those whom he excited to passionate excitement—these men, led on, headed by him, brought themselves to commit an act which resulted in this political murder of Inspector Martin. He wished to ascertain how the right hon. Gentleman could distinguish between the cases of those men and the cases of the prisoners whom the Home Secretary had refused to release? How were they to distinguish between their offence and the offence of men who had political motives at the bottom of their dynamite conspiracies? If this dictum was to be acted upon in England and not in Ireland, then the Chief Secretary should tell them where the distinction lay. But if that dictum was to be 1074 acted upon in Ireland, then the right hon. Gentleman should tell them how it was that he could recommend the clemency of the Crown in favour of these men belonging to Gweedore. The right hon. Gentleman said the state of Donegal would sanction the release of the prisoners. Were they to understand that the most horrible murder, the most dreadful outrage, ought to be condoned by I he state of the country in which it might occur? Were they to believe that, if a murder was committed that, after two or three months or two years, the man who committed that murder was to he released on the ground that he would not do the like again? The Lord Chancellor said the object of punishment was to deter from crime, and they were asked to suppose that these men had undergone sufficient punishment to prevent them, he presumed, from committing a similar crime again? Upon what ground was that supposition founded? Were they to apply it generally to crimes other than murder? Let them take a case of forgery. A man might commit a most serious forgery which he could not he tempted to commit again; but because he had been convicted and had received a heavy sentence, was he to be released after a short period of punishment had elapsed simply because he was not likely to repeat his crime? It appeared to him that the evidence put forward in this House and in another place was absolutely inconclusive and insufficient to support the action of the right hon. Gentleman. There were other cases in Ireland in which other prisoners were suffering long periods of punishment. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to apply to all these prisoners the same principles as he had applied in the cases of the Gweedore convictions? One of his hon. Friends would probably refer to that aspect of the case later on. They wished to know distinctly from the right hon. Gentleman whether he was prepared to state that it was a satisfactory point of view to appeal, in circumstances of the character of those described, from time Irish authorities to the English authorities to enable him to carry out the policy into which He had been driven by political necessities? He said he did not care what the House or the country said about his action. That was a very serious statement, considering the position of the 1075 right hon. Gentleman from whom it came. Were they, who were subject in some degree to the Executive administration of the right hon. Gentleman, to be told that the right hon. Gentleman was not to be subject to the opinion of that House or to the opinion of the country? At all events, during the time he had been in Office he had not been inclined to show any very great regard for the position of the minority in Ireland. During the past six months he had been playing continuously up to the support of those who had placed his Party in Office, and had been trying to carry out the bargain made in that House by which concession was to be the price of support. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to answer the questions he had put to him.
§ *MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said, the right hon. Gentleman declared the other night that in releasing the Gweedore prisoners he was exercising a wise and just clemency. Well, if he had convinced himself that the clemency so extended was wise and just he was entitled to say that; but if that clemency was part of the understanding and agreement with the Member for East Mayo, the question arose whether it was either wise or just or whether it was not as payment of blackmail for support. In considering these cases they must look to the circumstances under which this murder of Inspector Martin occurred. In the first place, it arose out of the Plan of Campaign conspiracy. Of that there was no doubt. It was beyond all doubt. That conspiracy was an illegal one, and any murder arising out of such a conspiracy had very little claim for consideration at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. Some of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters on that (the Liberal) side of the House took an active part in the Plan of Campaign, and he, for his part, could understand the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) doing what the right hon. Gentleman had done, but he did not think the Chief Secretary had ever gone about supporting the Plan. It was a very nice commentary indeed upon hon. Members' opposite that the moment difficulties overtook them the Plan of Campaign on the Olphert Estate collapsed, and the tenants paid three years' rent and costs and returned to their holdings. 1076 Now, there was a warrant issued for the arrest of Father McFadden. He chose to evade the execution of that warrant for weeks.
§ MR. MACNEILLNo.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLThe hon. Member said "No." He said he deliberately and systematically evaded the execution of that warrant, and that was the reason why Sunday—the only day they could execute it—was chosen for the arrest, and out of that arrest the murder of Inspector Martin arose. Did the right hon. Gentleman question the guilt of these four men? Did he deny that they were present or that they took part in the struggle? If he could not deny these things, he would like to know upon what ground he had liberated these men? He described the murder as a deliberate and brutal one. They kept in dynamitards, but they liberated those murderers and sent them back to Ulster. He would be told that the two sorts of crime could not be compared; and he admitted that in one sense, but not in another. It was quite true, as stated from the opposite Benches on the previous night, that by the dynamiters no blood was shed and there was no loss of life; but in a case where blood was shed and life lost the right hon. Gentleman liberated the murderers at the demand of gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman said that he came to the consideration of the whole question with an open and impartial mind; but he might tell them how he could have approached the question in that light when he, after the trials, assailed the trials and attacked them even with regard to the change of venue. What a wise thing it would have been to try these men by Father McFadden's own parishioners I Yet the right hon. Gentleman and his friends went about the country denouncing the change of venue from the County Donegal, where a conviction would have been impossible, no matter how plain the evidence. The man who had gone about England, after the trials, declaring them to be unjust, now called on the House to believe that he bad come to the consideration of this matter with a practically impartial and open mind. He (Mr. Russell) had a suspicion as to the subject the hon. Member for Waterford referred to last night, that the understanding or agreement come to between the 1077 hon. Member for Mayo and the Government had something to do with the exercise of this just and wise clemency Under Which one bridal murderer had been liberated and three other men concerned in the murder had been let loose to Society in Ulster. He would ask—and the question had been put two or three times already—had there been any case in England where a prisoner had been released in this way without the concurrence of the Judge who tried him? If there had been any case let the right hon. Gentleman quote it. He (Mr. Russell) did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to produce any ease of the kind. If the Judge had concurred he did not believe this Amendment would have been moved; but looking at the way in which this murder arose, out of this illegal conspiracy—a conspiracy that broke down the moment hon. Gentlemen opposite ceased to have funds to keep it up, the tenants going back to their farms and paying three years' rent and costs—and looking at the arrangement and understanding and agreement between hon. Members opposite and the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Russell) chose to believe that this "wise and just clemency" had resulted from that arrangement and understanding', and that the right hon. Gentleman had outraged the Province of Ulster in a way that he would not have dared to outrage England, by letting people of this kind loose upon Society.
§ COLONEL WARING (Down, N.)wished to intervene for only a few moments on a point that the Chief Secretary would not, perhaps, blame him for introducing. The right hon. Gentleman had assured the House that he had been guided by no political motive, but entirely by a desire to show a wise and just clemency in the release of the prisoner whose ease had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He (Colonel Waring) was one of those who was most anxiously desirous of giving the Chief Secretary for Ireland credit for very good intentions in this matter, and he thought he could point out a process by which he could greatly assist him (Colonel Waring) and Ins hon. Friends in acquitting him of any improper motive. The riots that took place in Belfast in 1886 had no doubt been impressed on the right hon. Gentle- 1078 man's memory, for he then held the same position that he did now, and was largely concerned in the suppression of those riots. During these riots many serious conflicts took place between the police and military and the inhabitants of the town, who were misguided enough to use deadly weapons in the conflict. Bullets were flying in all directions—the police were firing on the inhabitants, and some of the inhabitants were firing back at the police. During one of these encounters an old man, named Joseph Walker, fired a revolver, the bullet, unfortunately, striking one of Her Majesty's soldiers and causing his death. Walker, who was now a man of 60 years of age, was sentenced to penal servitude for 20 years. He had served eight of them. Well, would the right hon. Gentleman assist them in acquitting him of any political motive in releasing the Gweedore prisoners by extending clemency to Joseph Walker and letting him return to the bosom of his family? The man had been sentenced for a crime committed in the heat of action and without deliberation, and his offence certainly compared most favourably with what was done by the Gweedore prisoners. The cases were parallel. The Chief Secretary was an authority on literature. No doubt he had respect for the fathers of English' literature. Well, he (Colonel Waring) would call attention to a passage from one of these—the most celebrated—which touched upon the question in hand, and was so prophetic that it might have been written with a knowledge of what load happened during the past few days. Edmund Spencer, in a work on the state of Ireland, published before the reign of Queen Elizabeth ended, said—
As, for example, some of them seeing the end of their Government draw nigh and some mischiefs and troublous practices growing up which afterwards may work trouble to the next succeeding Governor will not attempt the redress or cutting off thereof lest the next that cometh should receive the same too quiet, and so haply with more praise thereof than they before. And, therefore, they will not, as I said, seek at all to repress that evil, but will either by granting protection for a time or holding some emparlance with the rebel or by treaty of Commissioners or by other like devices only smother and keep down the flame of mischief, so as it may not break out in their time of Government. What comes afterwards they care not, or rather wish the worst. This course hath been noted in some Governors.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOE IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,) Newcastle-upon-TyneThe precise application of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's quotation I fail to see. I remember the case to which he referred very well; and if he will send in a Memorial to the Lord Lieutenant on the subject it will be considered with cases of the same kind. I do not think the House will expect me, after the lassitude which seems to have overtaken this Debate, to go at length into the controversy of which we had a fair share the other night, and which does not seem to me to be likely to receive further light from the tone the Debate has now taken. I must say that I think we all recognise the good taste which made the hon. and learned Gentleman who was to have moved this Amendment assign the part to another Member; but I hope the late Solicitor General for Ireland will reflect upon the part which he himself took the other night when he made a speech of signal ability. I think the weight and authority of that speech would have been far less if the House had been aware at the time he was making it—as I was—that the hon. and learned Gentleman was second or third counsel in the case.
§ MR. CARSONI stated that I was a counsel.
§ MR. J. MORLEYThe hon. Member for Tyrone, as usual, starts all Irish discussions with a reference to the Plait of Campaign. I cannot imagine a more irrelevant consideration that could be brought to bear upon this matter. The question we are arguing is whether the advice to the Crown to exercise clemency was rightly or wrongly given. Some Members seem to think that the Plan of Campaign has some direct bearing on the point; but the question as to the circumstances under which the original warrant was issued against Father McFadden has no bearing or relevance whatever to it. How did the murder arise? I will not say one word in defence or in palliation of the brutality of it—I have never done so, and I hope I am incapable of it—but that murder was provoked by the want of discretion in those who had the police arrangements in hand. [Cries of "No!"] hon. Gentlemen say "No." The right hon. Gentleman w ho was at that time Chief Secretary will not say 1080 "No." The right hon. Gentleman now the Leader of the Opposition, speaking in February, 1889, and talking of the melancholy and tragic circumstances connected with Father McFadden, said—
Unquestionably there was an error committed by the officer on the spot an error of judgment. Nobody doubts it. But for the right hon. Gentleman "—myself—" to say that the central Government VMS responsible is surely harsh.The right hon. Gentleman admitted, what nobody who has examined the circumstances, however superficially, can deny, that an error or judgment was committed in the circumstances of the arrest. That brings me to the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Carson) as to Father McFadden's share in this transaction. The hon. and learned Gentleman read out with great effect a passage from a speech or sermon of Father McFadden, which, no doubt, contained menacing and incendiary expressions—menacing at all events. But when was that speech made? A year and a half before the transactions connected with the murder of Inspector Martin. Therefore, what was the significance of that quotation from Father McFadden's speech'? I would say another thing. Supposing that Father McFadden's utterances had been of the kind described by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and had come before the Executive Government, was not that the very reason why the Executive Government should hove taken special care that the arrest should take place under circumstances which would guard against the dangers prophesied by Father McFadden? The hon. and learned Gentleman tried to lay more on Father McFadden than the conduct of the prosecuting counsel afterwards would justify. If Father McFadden, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, was the fountain and origin of this miserable transaction—if he was a party to the conspiracy which ended in the murder of Inspector Martin, why did the Government deal with him as they did? I want the House to listen to the actual facts of the treatment of Father McFadden by the Crown. You would suppose from the language of the hon. and learned Gentleman the other night that, Father McFadden being so guilty, the Crown would have taken good care to bring 1081 him, the guiltiest of all, to justice. Did they do so? Father McFadden was arrested. He was returned for trial for murder. He passed many weeks in prison without bail. Ultimately he was admitted to bail. Two true bills were sent up against him by the Grand Jury—one for murder and one for couspiracy; and he pleaded guilty not to murder and not to any act of violence or wrong-doing whatever on February 3rd, 1889.
§ MR. CARSONObstructing the police.
§ MR. J. MORLEYNo, obstructing the police on a previous day. Of course, like the hon. Member, I only know what I have read in the Reports about this transaction. I have not the advantage of having been the prosecuting counsel. I say that Father McFadden pleaded guilty to no act of violence; he walked away from the Court untried. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Whole speech tent to show that Father McFadden ought to have received a severer punishment than any of these wretched peasants; but, as a matter of fact, Father McFadden, whom he regards as the guiltiest of them all, walked away unscathed and untouched. I do not think this was understood from the version of the transaction given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I ask him why do you complain of us for having released these four men after they have undergone three years' penal servitude when you let the man who, according to your contention, way the guiltiest of them all escape without any punishment at all? There are one or two more remarks to he made on that aspect of the case. You must understand that there were altogether 23 men returned for trial in connection with this transaction—10 were charged with murder and 13 with conspiracy Of the 10 who were indicted for murder six were discharged without punishment including the man Gallagher and the man, Ferry; while of the 13 who were indicted for conspiracy five, among whom was Father McFadden, were also discharged, while eight who pleaded guilty and got small sentences. The House is dealing with the cases of four of the men—and one of them may be left out of account practically, for he was not punished for being directly concerned in the attack on the person of Inspector Martin—who were convicted and who were sentenced 1082 to terms of penal servitude, varying from ten to seven years. It is said that I ought to have consulted Mr. Justice Gibson; but, as I have said before, and I am sorry to be obliged to repeat it, that learned Judge made a very careful Report of the case to the Lord Lieutenant a couple of years ago, in which he surveyed the whole case and the quality of the evidence; and (though I am not at liberty to quote his language) he expressed his views with regard to it, to the effect that, although he had no complaint to make of the verdict, still he could understand that another verdict could have been given, We had before us his view of the transaction, and to ask him for a Report would have been merely giving him the trouble to repeat again opinions which he had already stated perfectly adequately. The assertion—I will not say the innuendo—of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, made in his genial way, is that I consulted all English legal authority in the matter because I was intent upon getting an opinion favourable to the prisoners.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI never said that the right hon. Gentleman had consulted an English legal authority for the purpose of getting a favourable opinion.
§ MR. CARSONI did.
§ MR. J. MORLEYThen I withdraw the statement.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take back the geniality as well.
§ MR. J. MORLEYThe hon. Gentleman opposite put a great many questions to me as to confidential communications between a Minister and his law advisers. The House is welcome to know the details of these communications, but they would have no bearing on the question before us. The Irish Lord Chancellor gave his opinion independently of the English Lord Chancellor, whose opinion he did not know; and the English Lord Chancellor gave me Iris opinion with regard to it independently of the Irish Lord Chancellor. Do let hon. Gentlemen believe that even a Minister may he capable of carrying on a transaction of this kind with something like common rainless, common candour, and common sense. In passing, I may say that the charge against me is that, in forming my judgment in the case as I did, I did not go carefully into the 1083 evidence or the merits, but arrived at it as a foregone conclusion, and—the hon. Member for South Tyrone will not object to the geniality here—the suggestion is that I took the course I did as the payment of blackmail. I think I can safely leave all these insinuations and assertions to take care of themselves. I will tell the House of the number of these prisoners and the fortunes that befell them. We were specially concerned with Coll, Roherty, and Rogers. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite made a great point of the fact that two of these men, Roherty and Rogers, had pleaded guilty, but the hon. and learned Gentleman did not tell the House the circumstances under which they had done so. I will now tell hon. Members what happened and how it was that they came to plead guilty. Coll had been found guilty of manslaughter—but was not yet sentenced—on the evidence of a certain constable, and the two men in question were visited in prison by Father McFadden, who told them what had happened in Coll's case, and that Gallagher and Ferry, against whom the constable had given similar evidence, had been discharged.
§ MR. J. MORLEYThe whole of the facts have come out since these men were sent to prison. The men were told by Father McFadden that they world be let off with light sentences—sentences made lighter by the consideration of the provocation they had received, in the event of their pleading guilty. We have it now stated—it has come out to-day—that the Irish Atttorney General bad said that he would ask the Judge to regard the plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance in their case. Those were the reasons which induced the men to plead guilty, and to say that because they pleaded guilty under such circumstances—we are justified in assuming that all the charges against them were proved up to the hilt—isoue of those things that no one with a knowledge of human nature or common sense would recommend to the consideration of the House of Commons. The constable to whom I have alluded was the only man who swore that the men released 1084 had struck Martin. He stated that he had seen a man who was unknown step back two paces and then strike Martin with a paling post a blow on the head. That blow might have caused Martin's death. The hon. Member asks how we know that these men were not the actual murderers. According to the evidence of the constable the real murderer was the unknown man. With the paling he struck Martin and felled him to the ground and repeated the blow, and undoubtedly caused the death of the Inspector. The hon. and learned Gentleman's picture—terrible no doubt—of the condition of the corpse of this unfortunate man—really does not bear on the point before us. There was no evidence to show that any of these men struck Martin the blow which caused his death. It is true that the constable stated that he saw Jack Gallagher and Pat Roherty strike Martin on the head with stones after he fell, and that he had seen Coll and Dominic Rogers fling stones; but it must be remembered that the constable at the time he said he witnessed these things was flying for Ids life, and that Martin was lying on the ground surrounded by a vast crowd. It is very doubtful whether, under such circumstances, he could see what took place. What did the Court do? In the case of Gallagher, against whom the evidence was equally strong, the jury disagreed, and the Crown did not put him upon his trial again, but discharged him. The same is true of the ease of William Ferry. Among the considerations which have been present to my mind in forming this responsible duty was the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence—not the evidence judged by me, but as the Crown counsel themselves must have found it. The inconsistency and incoherence in the line taken by the prosecution make it impossible, for anyone reviewing the case, to look that the identification of the prisoners whom we have released could be regarded as satisfactory. If counsel had attached much credibility to the evidence, they would have proceeded further in the cases of Gallagher and Ferry than they did. The hon. and learned Gentleman the other night made no reference to the cases of these men.
§ MR. CARSONYou have not referred to them.
§ MR. J. MORLEYThen the hon. Gentleman was not endeavouring to lead 1085 us to a true conclusion, but was merely making a debating, speech for Party purposes. This is the way in which the deliberations of the House are to be guided by eminent Queen's Counsel. I repeat that our grounds for releasing these prisoners were threefold. First, that the course adopted by the Crown in the prosecution was not such as to give us that confidence in the evidence as to make its feel sure that the men were guilty; secondly, in regard to the severity of the sentences, it was necessary and proper to consider the circumstances under which the crime was committed; and the third point was the severity of the sentences had been such as to adequately vindicate all the ends of justice, even if I had attached too much weight to either of the two first considerations. The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway to-night stated that it was quite an unknown doctrine and a perfect innovation to suppose that because Donegal was quieter now than it was when the crime was committed, therefore there was no reason for altering or reducing the sentences. If the hon. Gentleman knew the very rudiments of this resort to the clemency of the Crown, he would be aware that this is a consideration which is always borne in mind by the Judges when consulted on these questions of remission of punishment by those upon whom devolves the responsible duty of advising the exercise of the clemency of the Crown.
§ MR. J. MORLEYCertainly. Only the other day a Memorial came before the Lord Lieutenant praying fir the clemency of the Crown for a man who had been seven years in penal servitude. The Judge to whom it was referred at once inquired whether the district was quiet; and, upon being informed that this was the case, he at once struck off about one-third of the sentence. That is one illustration of a thing which is constantly done.
§ MR. MACARTNEYThe right hon. Gentleman did not consult the Judge in these cases.
§ MR. MORLEYThat is not the point at all. That is one of the most irrelevant interruptions I hat I have yet heard. The argument that I was pressing was that these remissions of sentences depend on the state of a particular 1086 district at the time when a sentence comes under review. Does the hon. Member mean to tell me that a Judge of the land is better able to decide as to the state of the country than the Executive Government? As for the state of Donegal, that was sufficiently shown by the fact to which I have called attention. At the last Winter Assizes held at Sligo there was not a single case for trial from County Donegal. Am I to be told, then, that we in re-considering these cases are to leave out of account the fact that Donegal was in a state of absolute tranquillity and quiet? The charge that I have abused the prerogative of clemency by using it as a political weapon, or in order to attract political support, is absolutely and obviously baseless. What political support can you point to? What single vote could be effected by the action which we took in this matter? On the contrary; I was well aware that there was something to lose; for I knew very well that this attack would be made upon me. I do not allude to the comparatively languid attack made to-night; I mean the vigorous attack the Leader of the Opposition was sure to make upon me, and the hon. and learned Gentleman. I foresaw all the sensational pictures the right hon. Gentleman would draw, all the all the appeals to passion that he and others would make. I heard in anticipation all the foolish strong language; I foresaw all the heat—some of it feigned—that he would show. But I should have been the most contemptible of men if I had allowed any regard for my own Parliamentary peace and quietness which would I have been preserved by my abstaining from advising this just, merciful, and most politic act to influence me. I use the word "politic" not in the arrow meaning of Party interest. If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not know any other meaning of that word, their vocabulary is extremely limited. No narrow interest of a Party is involved. It is politic I say, in the highest and widest sense of the word.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think it will be admitted that the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend has served its purpose in eliciting the full defence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. It appears that that defence was cut in two halves. He gave us 1087 the first half the other night without dropping any suggestion as to the second half, which was, I suppose, present to his mind when he spoke. The first defence was blown to pieces by my right hon. and learned Friend who sits near me. I do not think that anybody who has in his mind any recollection of that speech will think it necessary to go over that part of the defence which the right hon. Gentleman has served up to the House. With regard to the second volume which he has given us to-night, it is only necessary for me to say that it turned on the supposed inadequacy of the evidence and the supposed injustice of the sentences—suppositious which were distinctly thrown aside by the Lord Chancellor of England, who threw no doubt whatever on the justice of the sentences passed. When the right hon. Gentleman was reduced to basing his action on the supposed innocence of men who pleaded guilty, no further argument is needed, and I think we may well afford to leave the question where it has been left by the various speeches delivered on either side, conscious that we have now got the full case of the Government, and conscious as we all must be how utterly weak and utterly rotten that case is. I would, therefore, recommend my hon. and learned Friend either to withdraw his Amendment or divide, as may seem good to him, so that we may pass to the other questions on the Paper.
MR. MAC NEILL (Donegal, S.)declared that the prisoners had been tried unfairly and by a packed jury. One of them, who could not speak a word of English, was tried by a jury who could not speak a word of Irish, and his trial had been declared illegal by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, Chief Baron Palles, and two other Judges. He would not, however, go into the details of the case, as he did not wish to interpose between the House and the Division.
§ MR. SPEAKERDoes the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to withdraw the Amendment?
§ Objection being taken,
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Main Question again proposed.