MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

HC Deb 07 July 1893 vol 14 cc1073-94

Mr. T. W. Russell, Member for South Tyrone, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the failure of justice at the present Assizes for the County of Clare in political and agrarian cases, and the conduct of the Government in not taking the necessary steps to remedy the defect existing in the administration of justice"; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen,

^*MR. T. W. RUSSELL moved the adjournment of the House. He said it was quite true that he made a Motion of a similar character only a few weeks ago, but a good many things had happened since then. He wished, first of all, to call attention to the question he raised on the previous occasion. The Spring Assizes in the County of Clare had then just been held. At those Assizes nine prisoners had been put upon their trial for agrarian offences, and every one of them, with the exception of a gamekeeper, had been acquitted. He supposed the Clare jury thought that the gamekeeper, at all events, was fair game. These facts had been admitted by the Chief Secretary, and nobody had been in a position to traverse them. Immediately afterwards he (Mr. Russell) and his friends asked whether, in view of facts and proceedings of this kind, the Government intended to remove the administration of the criminal affairs of this county outside the bounds of the county. The Judge presiding at the Spring Assizes had suggested that this should be done, and if he (Mr. Russell) recollected aright, he went the length of saying that it was little short of a farce to go on with things as they were. The Chief Secretary replied with great curtness to the request that was made to him, saying that the Government did not intend to take any steps in the matter. The jurors had been admittedly visited and intimidated by certain people in the county. This was admitted by the Chief Secretary. The result was seen in the Court House at Ennis when the jurors acquitted the prisoners. The Government must have had good reason for refusing to take any steps in the matter; but the reasons for their conduct did not appear on the surface. He knew perfectly well that the Government could not conveniently change the venue in these cases without proclaiming the county and bringing back into operation a section of the Crimes Act. But seeing that they had the power in their own hands, seeing that to-morrow the Lord Lieutenant could proclaim the County of Clare, or could proclaim any specific baronies within that county, and seeing that, under such a proclamation, a change of venue could be secured and special juries could be obtained as a right, it was incumbent upon the Government to show very good cause indeed why they should allow the travesty of justice which was taking place in Clare to continue. He knew the Chief Secretary had strong views about the Crimes Act. It was called the Coercion Act, but it was well to bear in mind that there were two kinds of coercion. By putting those who committed crime upon their trial under circumstances in which conviction was impossible, and in which the Judge de- clared conviction to be impossible, the Government were not coercing the criminal, but were coercing the poor victims of his crimes. Whilst he (Mr. Russell), and those who agreed with him, had no abstract love of coercion, they preferred that if anybody was to be coerced it should be the criminal and not his victim. It might be said that he had chosen a very inconvenient time for bringing this question forward. Those who were in opposition, however, could not pick and choose their time. The Government had so arranged matters that they had taken the whole time of the House practically from private Members, and, as no satisfaction could be obtained by questioning the Chief Secretary, he submitted that those to whom the minority in the County of Clare looked for support and protection would fail in almost their first duty if they did not take every opportunity that fairly came in their way of asking the House to insist upon justice being done in that county. Since the Spring Assizes things had been going on in Clare pretty much as they went on before. The mere fact that so many criminals escaped at the last Assize naturally gave criminals almost immunity from the consequences of their crimes, and they had since been going about the county moonlighting, shooting people in the road, and intimidating law-abiding citizens to their hearts' content. In spite of this the Government sat perfectly placid on the Treasury Bench and did not seem to care one atom whether the poor people in Clare had the protection of the law or not. The first case that came before the present Assize was a charge against five men of rescue from the Sheriff. These men, who were tried on Monday last, were identified first of all by the Sheriff himself as having taken part in the rescue, and then by the bailiffs who were present. He could understand Nationalist Members saying that the Sheriff and the bailiffs did not count, but he did not think that line of defence would be taken by the Chief Secretary. At all events, however, the Nationalist Members who had lately shown extraordinary trust in the police, would attach some importance to the fact that the prisoners were also identified by the police who were present. The jury, however, returned a verdict of acquittal on the spot, and the Judge from his place on the Bench declared that this verdict was a scandal to the administration of justice. It was undoubtedly a scandal to the administration of justice, but it was also a scandal to the Government who, in face of the warnings they had received, had deliberately sent these men to be tried by a Clare jury. Another case was tried on the following day.

MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.)

Might I ask the hon. Gentleman if he would be so good as to say what crimes the five prisoners were charged with?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I stated distinctly that it was a case of rescue from the Sheriff.

MR. W. REDMOND

Do I understand that it was a case of rescue of their own cattle?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, that was not the case. The prisoners set up no defence whatever, and he thought there was a good deal to be said for their action in this respect, because they were certainly entitled to rely upon a Clare jury. Why should a Clare prisoner take the trouble to set up a defence when he knew that his defenders were in the jury box?

MR. W. REDMOND

As a matter of convenience, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that the prisoners were defended by very eminent counsel?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, it was true that the witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the prisoners by very eminent counsel; but when the time came for the defence, no defence was attempted. In the second case which had been tried, and the particulars of which were given in The Times newspaper, the jury did not promptly acquit the prisoner, but disagreed. The Judge asked whether this was a case that had been previously tried. The Crown Prosecutor stated that it was, and the Judge thereupon declared that it was a farce to go on with these proceedings. There was one case of counterfeit coin, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty. He admitted that in cases of ordinary crime, where no political motive could be assigned, these jurors would do their duty; but he submitted to the House that the proceedings at the two Assizes showed that in cases where the agrarian question was raised, or where the crime was tinged with politics, it was absolutely impossible to get a verdict from a Clare jury. The Chief Secretary for Ireland well knew what was going on in the County of Clare, and he knew that the state of things there was not a state of civilisation. [Cries of "Oh!"] Of course it was all very well for those who were committing crimes with impunity, and who could do practically what they liked; but he submitted that to the poor victims, to the men and women who wanted to do what was right and honest, who wanted to pay their rents, who wanted to do an honest day's work for a fair day's wage, and who desired to go through life quietly, and to have nothing to do with politics, and still less with the ruffians who infested this county, it was not a state of civilisation. He heard someone saying on the previous evening that the fact that some place was 10 days' distance from London excused a great deal. County Clare was not more than 24 hours' distance from the place where he was now standing. It was full of policemen, and nothing was wanting but the signature of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to put an end to the whole business. He proposed to read an extract or two from the Charge of the learned Judge at the present Clare Assizes. He had taken the best report he could find—that which appeared in The Times, which was a tolerably long report. Mr. Justice Gibson, charging the Grand Jury on the 3rd of July, said— The amount of business was more than he anticipated when he settled the Circuit, but none of the cases appeared of great consequence except three, one being of murder, the infanticide of an illegitimate child, and the others being in connection with some seizures by Mr. Macadam. These seizures appeared to have been resisted by a considerable number of people. None of the ordinary crimes were of a character to merit any special observations. With regard to the general condition of the county, he learned from the Constabulary Returns that the number of specially reported cases for these Assizes was 96 as compared with 74 for the corresponding period of last year. That, at all events, was a fact for the Chief Secretary about which there could be no mistake. The right hon. Gentleman had his Constabulary on the spot. They were under the right hon. Gentleman's orders, and it was they who had sent in this Report to the Judge. Mr. Justice Gibson went on to say— This would appear to indicate a considerable increase in the amount of crime, and that crime, with one or two exceptions, was of the worst character.

MR. J. MORLEY

That is what The Times says. What the Judge really said was— This would appear to indicate a considerable increase in the amount of crime, though none of that crime, with one or two exceptions, is of the worst character.

[Nationalist cries of "Pigott!"]

MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. Hon. Members here are calling out "Pigott!"

MR. SPEAKER

I hope no expression of that kind will be used.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I am sure I have no desire to mislead the House. I took the best report I could, and I have no means of knowing what report the Chief Secretary is quoting from.

MR. J. MORLEY

The official note taken at the time by the official note-takers. [Nationalist cheers.]

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, this was the first time he had heard the Nationalist Members cheering an official note. His opinion had already been that they had not a very high opinion of the Jeremiah Stringers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and he congratulated them on their change of view. At all events, it was only the most serious crime that was reported to the Judge. [Cries of "No!"] When the Judge spoke of 96 against 74 he was not referring to drunkenness and offences of that kind. The Chief Secretary would not, at all events, deny that the Judge declared that there was a very considerable increase in the specially reported cases. This fact threw a tremendous responsibility on Her Majesty's Government. It was perfectly well known that juries would not convict in these special cases in Clare, and what he desired to ask the Chief Secretary was whether this state of things was to go on? The right hon. Gentleman knew—he had bowed his assent already to the horrible condition of the county. Why was Clare in that horrible condition? Because justice was paralysed. Those criminals, as they proceeded every night on their mission of outrage, knew that they could do so with absolute impunity, because, first of all, the Clare juries would not convict; and, secondly, because Nationalist Members would not allow the Chief Secretary to change the venue. He asked the Chief Secretary whether he was prepared to go on in this ignoble servitude? Was he prepared to allow the County of Clare to be overrun by men doing what they liked with the property of their neighbours, and frequently attempting to take their lives? Was he prepared to allow that to go on simply and solely because Irish Members would not allow him to proclaim the county and to avail himself of the Crimes Act, by which he could change the venue and stop the mischief? If the right hon. Gentleman would answer that question plainly, then they would not quarrel about the minutiæ of these cases or of the minutiæ of the Judges' Charges. He wanted to see this business stopped in the County of Clare, and the Chief Secretary could stop it. If the right hon. Gentleman refused, then for these crimes, which were a disgrace not only to Ireland but to humanity, he must take the responsibility, for no other man could clear the county of them.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne)

I would not have been at all surprised at the subject being brought forward at the proper time, when the necessary information was accessible, when there had been time to read the Charges of the Judges, and opportunity to ascertain the facts and details of the cases, of which only two have been mentioned. The House would then have been in a position to judge of the conduct of the Executive Government. I have no desire whatever to shirk one atom of the responsibility that rests upon me for the state of Ireland. I do not seek, and I have no right to seek, any quarter from the Opposition; but I submit to the House, and I think the Opposition will agree, that it is an extreme course to make an attack upon the Government in connection with the proceedings at Assizes which I believe are not yet over.

MR. CARSON (Dublin University)

They finished the day before yesterday.

MR. J. MORLEY

The hon. Gentleman may know; but so far as I know, if the Assizes are over, they were only over last night. Anyway, there has been no opportunity to obtain information. One of the cases was tried on Monday last and the other on Tuesday. Reports could not reach this country until Wednesday or yesterday, and, if I had nothing else to do, there has been no time in this short interval of a few days to ask for official opinions upon the facts and to communicate with the prosecuting counsel. Yet the hon. Member, on the strength of some newspaper reports—un-veracious reports, as I have shown—thinks he has got material enough for a case against the Government. I ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, is it reasonable that this should be done without a word of notice?

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

What would have happened if I had given notice? I should at once have been blocked by notice of a Resolution.

MR. J. MORLEY

If the hon. Member had given me notice—that notice which even the humblest Minister may reasonably expect, and which any other Minister but the Irish Minister would assuredly have got—the hon. Member knows very well that if he had given me notice this morning, it would have enabled me to telegraph to Dublin and Ennis and get a good deal of information. Instead of that, I only heard of the intention to move the adjournment almost at the end of questions. I went to the hon. Member 10 minutes before he rose and said, "Is it true there is going to be a Motion for Adjournment?" "Yes," said he,"on the Clare Assizes." That is all the notice I have received. I put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who dislike the policy with which I am associated, whether that is fair or reasonable treatment—I do not say with reference to myself, for I do not care anything about that—but is it reasonable treatment to subject the House to? The House is asked to spend I do not know how much time upon an ex parte statement founded upon unverified, untested, and unsifted newspaper reports. I find that the Judge in his Charge said the reputed crime was not of the worst kind. [Cries of "Go on!"] I am quite ready to help the case of the hon. Member by quoting the general language of the Judge on the state of the County of Clare.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

What report is the right hon. Gentleman referring to?

MR. J. MORLEY

It is the report of The Irish Times. I have not had an opportunity of comparing it with the official report; but I believe a similar report would have been found in the London Times if the hon. Member had been candid enough to state the whole case. The report says— Mr. Justice Gibson said he was a stranger to the County of Clare; and though the Returns showing this considerable amount of crime might excite in the mind of a stranger considerable apprehension, to those familiar with the district they might appear to be only symptoms of a long-standing disease. The hon. Gentleman's case is that since the Spring Assizes things in Clare are going from bad to worse. That is not true. The Judge does not say so. He says to those who know the district these cases appear to be only the symptoms of a long-standing disease. He added— He would not be disposed, on the information before them, to draw the same inference from the increase of crimes shown by these Returns that he would in some other counties in Ireland. The truth is, that for the last 13 years the state of Clare has been the despair of successive Governments. The Leader of the Opposition was foiled by it. He did as little as we have done to improve the state of Clare. That was what the Judge was pointing to in his remarks. I wish that self-respect had led the hon. Member to read the following remarks of the Judge:— It might be that the Returns were more formidable on paper than they were in reality.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Read on.

MR. J. MORLEY

Why did not you read on? But, on the other hand, Clare was a county in which, from its history, any rise in the catalogue of crime ought to be regarded with grave apprehension. Does anyone suppose that the Irish Government do not regard what is going on in Clare with apprehension and anxiety? I have stated with perfect candour on all occasions when the state of Clare has been before the House that it is a disgrace to a civilised country. I am told that I can alter it by a stroke of the pen. The Leader of the Opposition used the stroke of the pen for six years; and how did he leave the County of Clare? Did he leave it the paradise which the hon. Member for South Tyrone desires? No; as a matter of fact, the state of Clare is better now than it was when the late Government left Office. ["Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members must give me some credit for not making a rash statement on a serious matter of this kind. I say that the County of Clare is not one atom worse; it is not by one atom more calculated to fill the Government with apprehension and anxiety than it was on the day the right hon. Gentleman opposite retired from Office. I say that when the Assizes are over at Limerick and Kerry, as well as Clare, and when there has been time to examine the verified statements and Returns, I shall be prepared to meet any Motion of this kind. For the present I will only say that the hon. Member has grossly exaggerated the effect of the Judge's Charge; he has laid before the House an unverified statement, and he has not enabled the House to form a judgment as to the precise measure of the miscarriage of justice which he alleges. As for making statements so bald, jejune, and coloured the basis of a charge that the whole policy of the Government has failed, that is one of the most extravagant assertions the hon. Member has ever made.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)

I had not thought of answering the right hon. Gentleman—at all events, not at the moment he sat down—but he has made a very direct appeal to me with regard to Motions of Adjournment. In response to the appeal made to my own experience, I will admit that it is a convenient practice to give notice to a Minister of the intention to attack him. But I must add that in my long experience no notice whatever was ever given to me, and I do not recollect a case out of the many in which the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to join in an attack on the late Government, on Motions for the Adjournment of the House, in which he took the opportunity of protesting against the treatment his predecessor received. But I will treat the right hon. Gentleman with a generosity which he has not, I think, always shown to myself; and I will admit that in these cases where the Government have to get up complicated details of administrative proceedings in Ireland it may be grossly unfair to ask them to defend themselves till they have full time to obtain and consider the information regarding these details which their officials in Ireland may have to give. But is this a case in which notice should have been given to the Government? I really think it is not. The issue before the House is not a question of the character or amount of the crime in Clare, or of the views of the police as to the causes of that crime. It is simply a question of whether or not in the Assizes which concluded the day before yesterday it was found possible under the system which the Government are keeping in force to obtain verdicts from a jury even in the clearest cases. With every allowance for the difficult position of the Chief Secretary, I put it to him whether he thinks any information he could get from Ireland would really modify the facts which my hon. Friend opposite has laid before the House? My hon. Friend opposite read a statement with regard to what Judge Gibson had said from The Times newspaper; and though I observe that everybody in the House, to whatever Party he belongs, invariably quotes from The Times when he has to deal with the transactions of the House or with speeches out of the House, my hon. Friend opposite was received with uproarious interruptions, as if he had quoted from a tainted source. These interruptions are grotesque; they are even childish. On the present occasion my hon. Friend might have quoted with even greater effect from the Irish papers. In both The Irish Times and The Freeman's Journal, which I have before me, the account of what Mr. Justice Gibson said on the occasion of these trials is not only precisely identical to that of The Times, but is even stronger and more forcible as to the language used. In one instance, according to the report in The Irish Times, Mr. Justice Gibson said that the case was conclusive against the defendants. The jury retired, and another case was taken up. The jury then returned a verdict of "Not Guilty." His Lordship asked if the next case was of the same character, and when told that it was, he said— There is no use, so far as I can see, of continuing. We are engaged in a solemn comedy at present. What is the use of wasting time if the cases are the same? Mr. Morphy, apparently sanguine, suggested that the new jury might be a better one, and Mr. Adams said the case having been entered on they must proceed with it. Mr. Justice Gibson said— Such a travesty of justice is perfectly melancholy. And added— I will say that the full responsibility rests with someone. In another case the witnesses were called for the defence. Mr. Justice Gibson said it was the clearest case of a violation of the law that he ever recollected being proved. The sergeant of police said it was the worst assembly of the kind he saw since he went to Bodyke, and at Bodyke he was likely to have a good deal of experience. After half an hour the jury returned, saying they could not agree. I admit—and I give this admission freely to the House—that it is impossible, and even absurd, in the case of a county like Clare, to say the condition of crime and outrage depends on one cause and one cause alone. I will not say that if these juries had convicted, or if convictions for crime in Clare had been got elsewhere, Clare would at once become a Paradise. The sources of social disorder are too deep-rooted, long-standing, and complex. But my argument against the Government is that if the experience of the civilised world be worth anything, there is, in the long run, some relation between bringing criminals to justice and the suppression of crime. If all the machinery for bringing criminals to justice, and, when convicted, for keeping them in penal servitude, is of any value, surely grave responsibility attaches to a Government which deliberately sanctions a system under which every criminal guilty of a certain class of offences knows that he may go into a Court without a semblance of a case; that he may not even put in a defence, and yet that he would be in that position incomparably safer than his unhappy victims. You cannot get rid of that responsibility by talking about statistics. You cannot get rid of the responsibility of seeing that justice is carried out by any statistics of the rise and fall of crime. I would in this matter most respectfully make an appeal to the Government. I recognise that you can only get rid of the present deplorable condition of the administration of justice in the dis- turbed counties in Ireland by adopting one clause of the Crimes Act—that by which change of venue will be permitted. I know that, owing to political circumstances with which we are familiar, that would be a difficult operation for the Government to go through. But I would appeal to them as patriots and statesmen. I do not—at all events, at the present moment—ask them to re-enact any of the clauses of the Crimes Act which they would themselves describe as coercive, and against which they fought go vigorously in 1887. I only ask them to re-enact a clause which they wished to make a permanent part of the law in 1885, which is a permanent part of the law of Scotland, and which the Prime Minister has distinctly asserted is not of a coercive character. And I promise so far as I am concerned, and so far as I can influence others, that if the Government take this course it will not be used as a political weapon against them. It will never be thrown in their face, either in this House or out of it, as a proof of their inconsistency, or as showing that their present system is wrong and their ancient attacks on us unfounded. I do not say the result of following such a course will be that crime will be put down, but I do say that a great and scandalous evil will be removed from the administration of justice. I do not ask that the Government should now give an answer to my appeal. I will be content with some kind of promise that they will watch the course of events at the other trials about to come on; and if, as we have reason to fear, the conduct of juries elsewhere will be what it has been at Ennis, that then they will not unfavourably consider the suggestion which, in all good faith, I have offered to them.

MR. J. MORLEY

I can only speak again by the indulgence of the House. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in a speech I made—I think on the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, but, at all events, within a very few weeks—I said to the House that we were watching crime within this black area—that is, in a piece of Kerry and a portion of Clare—and that we were watching it with a most vigilant and solicitous eye. And I then made this declaration—it is on record—that if I were persuaded that taking powers to change the venue and procure special juries would put an end to a state of things we all deplore that no amount of things I said in the past and no sense of mortification at having to unsay them would prevent my taking those powers.

MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.)

said, that, in view of the fact that no opportunity had been given either to the Government or private Members to inquire into the statistics presented at the last Assizes in Clare, he did not propose to say more than one or two words; but he felt he ought to take that opportunity of pointing out the very great difference in the attitude of the hon. Member for South Tyrone that day and the attitude he adopted on a former occasion when a similar Motion was made by the hon. Member for West Belfast. He agreed with what the Chief Secretary had said, that in a matter of this kind some sort of notice, however short, should be given to those interested. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had stated that had he given notice some action would have been taken to prevent the Motion for Adjournment. He could tell the hon. Member that he (Mr. Redmond) and his friends did not desire in the slightest degree to shirk discussion on the subject; and if they objected to the matter being introduced again, it was simply because this was the fourth Debate they had had on the condition of County Clare, and the hon. Member had not shown that anything had occurred to warrant his again bringing the subject forward. He must protest against the tone adopted by the hon. Member opposite with reference to this matter. The covert insinuations all through these speeches on the condition of Clare, that those concerned were in sympathy with crime or would not take ordinary precautions to put down crime, were of such an insulting character that he did not think they ought to be used even to the bitterest opponents in that House. The Leader of the Opposition said that if the Chief Secretary would take means to put down crime he would not be upbraided with being inconsistent. Was there any person in that House who imagined that the Chief Secretary would refuse to take a certain course, if he thought such a course was necessary, simply out of fear of being twitted with inconsistency by the Opposition? He thought such an insinuation was an unworthy one, and ought not to be uttered in that House. On the 1st June the hon. Member for West Belfast moved the Adjournment of the House on the ground that the condition of things in County Clare, by which convictions could not be obtained from juries in any case whatever of a criminal nature. On that occasion the hon. Member said— In the first place, past experience showed that convictions were not likely to be the result of such trials, whether the cases were agrarian or non-agrarian; and the hon. Member for South Tyrone said— This was not agrarian crime nor non-agrarian crime. It was sheer ruffianism, and for the Chief Secretary to have any scruple to apply the Crimes Act, or every Act, to put down that ruffianism was unworthy of an English statesman. He wished the House to notice the great change in what had taken place that day on this matter. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had admitted that day in the most frank manner that in ordinary criminal cases convictions were found as readily and regularly in Clare as in any other part of the United Kingdom, and that the cases in which the juries disagreed or found verdicts of "Not Guilty," were those which had what he called a tinge of agrarianism. He invited any Member of that House to study the facts in connection with the last Assizes in Clare. They would find that in all ordinary cases convictions were found, and not a word was said to the juries by the Judge or anybody else, and out of 16 cases the Member for South Tyrone referred to two only. Justice was done, even to satisfy the hon. Member, in all the other 14 cases; convictions were found, the men sentenced, and the hon. Member himself in his speech found no fault with what had taken place except in two cases.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I did not say verdicts had been found in all the other cases. I admitted, that so far as these cases had gone, and if they were not tainted with politics or agrarianism, that the juries had done their duty; but I did not say they had found verdicts of "Guilty" in all the other cases.

MR. W. REDMOND

did not say the hon. Member had said that verdicts of guilty were found in all the other cases; he led the House to believe that in all the cases at the Assizes, except these two, justice had been done. The fact remained that out of 16 cases at the Assizes the hon. Member had only complained of two. After having heard the exaggerated talk about the frightful condition of Clare, would hon. Gentlemen believe that the two cases to which the Member for South Tyrone had referred were not cases of a serious character involving the loss of life or property, or danger to life? The hon. Member was not sufficiently candid to tell the House that, but had led the House to believe by his silence that verdicts had not been found in two cases, which might have been of murder, or, at all events, of a very serious character. What were the two cases? They were two cases arising out of what, he made bold to say, was as black and wanton a conspiracy on the part of a landlord in Clare to discredit the present Government and Home Rule in Ireland as could be conceived. These were two cases of what were called rescue from the Sheriff. What did that mean? In a certain part of Clare, called Bodyke, a fight had been going forward between landlord and tenants. The tenants alleged they were not able to pay the full rents demanded of them. The landlord sent down a large force of bailiffs and police, armed with Winchester rifles, and encamped them in the district for the purpose of over-aweing the people. When they talked of Clare as being a disgrace to civilisation, he wished also to say it was a disgrace to civilisation that, under protection of the law, these bailiffs should be allowed to go about primed with drink, firing off their rifles in the middle of the night, overaweing the people, and keeping the whole of that district in a state of terror. On two occasions these bailiffs, with the police, had seized cattle. The people were there in excited crowds, and they regarded the proceedings as unjust. They said they could not pay their rents, which they alleged were unjust, and for which the cattle were seized, and in an excited way they attempted to rescue the cattle. These were the kind of cases in which, in the two instances, verdicts were not found, the only charge against the accused being that they endeavoured to rescue from bailiffs and police what they considered to be their own property—namely, the cattle seized for rents which they could not pay, and which they did not think themselves bound to pay. The jury found them "Not Guilty." He said, in the first place, there was not sufficient evidence to say the men had broken the law. But even if it was proved they did break the law, and attempted to make a struggle against their property being seized for rents they could not pay, there was, after all, nothing so very serious in the fact that their fellow-countrymen—peasants like themselves, and who had probably suffered in the same way—should refuse to give the Judge an opportunity of sending these men to prison for years and years, simply because they had violated the law in defending what they regarded as their property and right. Crime was bad, whether it was in Clare or anywhere else, and he had always said so. He had repeatedly, in Ireland and elsewhere, set himself against crime, but he said what was nearly as bad as crime was the exaggerated talk about crime. Things might be bad in Clare; but was that any reason why they should be made worse by hon. Members coming down there and leading the House to believe that juries refused to find verdicts in cases of murder, and otherwise of a serious character, when the fact was that there were only two cases where the juries refused to find a verdict of "Guilty," and these were cases of a distinctly agrarian character, simply relating to an attempt of these people to save their property. He wished to say a word or two about the estate of Colonel O'Callaghan. Colonel O'Callaghan had for several years past readily and willingly given his tenants a reduction of over 20 per cent. on their judicial rents, when he felt it necessary to suddenly stop giving that reduction. He did not allege that the people were in a better position to pay; as a matter of fact, prices were lower, and they were in a worse position, when suddenly, without assigning any reason, their landlord left off giving this reduction. He did it because the late Government went out and the present Government came in. All the time the late Government were in Office these reductions were continued, and there was little or no trouble between Colonel O'Callaghan and his tenants. Why did he stop the reductions? Because he was a Conservative. Colonel O'Callaghan entered into these proceedings against the tenants simply and solely for the purpose of stirring up the country and embarrassing the present Government. Colonel O'Callaghan cared very little whether a Coercion Act was on in that district or not before the present Government came in, and not because there was any necessity for anything of the kind, but simply to discredit the Government, and prove the country could not be governed without coercion, he entered into this conspiracy, and the two cases at the Assizes were cases of a number of unfortunate men who endeavoured to protect their cattle from this conspiracy. He (Mr. Redmond) told the Chief Secretary at the beginning of the Session—and he repeated it now—that he did not believe the people in Bodyke and other parts of Clare were able to pay the rents demanded of them without reduction. When they talked of crime and outrage in Clare, they should remember that, under ordinary circumstances, the people of Clare were as good and as law-abiding a people as in any place in the world. When they denounced crime and spoke of Clare as being a disgrace to civilisation, he also wanted to say it was a disgrace to civilisation that any landlord should be allowed to hunt his tenants about, to force them to pay rents which the landlord had admitted for years they could not pay, and to do it simply because of a political trick, and to cast discredit on a Government of which he did not approve. Some people imagined that a jury should always convict when a Judge said they had to do it. He was not there to make any charge against Judges collectively or individually; but hon. Members should bear in mind that there was not an occasion when any Judge made mention of a bad state of affairs that he was not, from a political point of view, glad to be able to do so. It was said that these gentlemen were not partisans. He should like the House to remember that no man could be a Judge in Ireland unless he was a political hack and partisan.

MR. SPEAKER (interposing)

remarked that criticisms, either collectively or individually, could not be made as to the conduct of Judges.

MR. W. REDMOND

perfectly agreed with the Speaker's ruling. All he wished to say was that no Judge could be appointed in Ireland until he had, in most cases, first come to that House, and on the Treasury Bench served a term of Office for one political Party or the other. They were essentially politicians, and when speeches were made by them, directed, as in the present instance, against a Liberal and Home Rule Government, he said that if words meant anything when a Judge said a great responsibility rested on somebody for this matter he was referring to Members of the Government, for these Judges were most of them Conservatives and landlords.

MR. SPEAKER

I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is a Rule to the effect that it is impossible, except by direct vote of the House, to impugn the conduct of Judges.

MR. W. REDMOND

observed, that he commenced his observations on this head by saying he did not desire to make charges against these Judges; but he maintained that when such statements were made from the Bench it ought to be remembered that these gentlemen were politicians. ["Order!"] He did not desire to offer any apology for crime in Clare or anywhere else; but he said that if Clare was in a bad state, or there was crime there now, it was principally because the people had had such an idea of the administration of the law put into their hearts by the last and previous Governments that they thoroughly distrusted the administration of the law. The Leader of the Opposition in his speech denounced crime in Clare, but omitted to say anything of his own introduction into that county of the battering ram to drive in the roofs over the heads of these poor people. The reason juries in Clare were distrustful of the administration of justice and took with great reserve the testimony given by the police and the officials of that kind was easily to be found. In this very County of Clare cases had been proved against the police authorities of the most shameful and corrupt attempts to get up crime and outrage. In the most dreadful case of all, where a police sergeant lost his life, it was proved beyond all question that the whole attack in which the sergeant was killed was concocted and got up by the police, and an informer named Cullinane admitted in the witness-box that he had been paid by the police for getting up the outrage. There was also the case of Sergeant O'Halloran, who, under cross-examination, admitted that he received money to get up cases of this kind. When such cases as these were proved to have occurred he said there was a very good reason why the people were careful in the verdicts which they found and had not a very great idea of the administration of justice. The Leader of the Opposition and the Member for South Tyrone seemed to think that by a stroke of the pen the Chief Secretary could put down crime. Why were not the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for South Tyrone frank enough to tell the House that when the Coercion Act was in full swing, with its change of venue and secret inquiry, and with the county proclaimed, these things had no effect whatever in checking crime? The Chief Secretary would be foolish if he introduced the Coercion Act into Clare again, knowing, as he did, from facts and figures, that it was absolutely powerless when it was in force to put down crime and violence. He was utterly tired of these repeated attempts to defame and blacken the character of a people who, under fair treatment, would be as good, as brave, and as loyal a people as any in the United Kingdom; and when such Motions as these were made, not for the purpose of putting down crime and outrage, but for the purpose of making political capital, it was lamentable in the last degree. He declared that County Clare was freer from serious crime than were many of the English counties. Not long ago he alluded to the fact that, in an English county, in a few months, five people had been murdered in cold blood, whilst in the same period not a single murder had occurred in Clare. He would tell the House frankly that he did not expect to see a tranquil state of affairs in Clare, or things working smoothly there, until the Government went to the root of the whole matter, and compelled Colonel O'Callaghan, and landlords like him, to treat the people properly and as they ought to be treated.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)

took note of the Chief Secretary's declaration, with which he had much sympathy, that it would be well to debate this question more fully when they had the complete information which would be supplied at the termination of the Clare and Limerick Assizes; and he thought it would be their duty to avail themselves of this invitation to bring up this matter when they had fuller information. When the right hon. Gentleman reproved them for the unofficial character of the information on which they acted, he must bear in mind that, after all, that was the best and only information available to them; and if they waited for a week or a month they should only have accessible to them, in addition to private information, the accounts which would appear in the newspapers. The justification for the hon. Member for South Tyrone bringing forward this question was the urgency of the matter. It did not require notice, for they gave notice not long ago. They who were interested in Clare stated a few weeks ago that there was only one result possible if these cases from County Clare were sent to the Clare Assizes—namely, acquittal, and now they had confirmation of their statement. With regard to what had been said by the Member for East Clare as to there being only two cases specifically mentioned, that was not relevant. The fact was that the possibility of capture and conviction had been so reduced that it was not possible for the Constabulary to arrest malefactors, or, if they did, there was no chance of securing a conviction. Therefore, if they saw that the number of cases brought up at the next Clare Assizes had been reduced, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not tell them that the state of Clare had improved because there was a fall in the number of cases brought up at the Assizes. The fact was that this statement made by the Judge was a true statement, and, in a portion of his Charge not quoted by the Chief Secretary, he stated it was impossible to escape from the conclusion that there existed a widespread system of intimidation in County Clare. The hon. Member for East Clare talked about Colonel O'Callaghan—and a man had been shot with four bullets who had been mistaken for that gentleman—but this demoralisation in Clare was far outside anything connected with Colonel O'Callaghan. There was an absolute feeling of despair in that county, and an impression that the law had passed altogether outside the Executive of the county, and into the hands of the executive of the gangs of malefactors throughout the county. He was perfectly certain the Chief Secretary, with the information he must have before him, would not challenge that statement. He did not agree with the Member for South Tyrone in thinking that by one stroke of the pen the Chief Secretary, or any other man, could put a stop to this crime. It was far too deep-rooted for that, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman might do a great deal to minimise it, and put some feeling of confidence and consolation into the hearts of people living under this daily terror which accompanied this crime. When he spoke on the occasion this question was last before the House, he said the Chief Secretary was as sincerely anxious to put a stop to crime as any man in that House—and probably more so, because of his position. But he did think it would be open to those who, like himself, were deeply concerned in the welfare of County Clare, to say if the right hon. Gentleman, after what he now knew, and what the future Assizes in Kerry and Limerick would certainly reveal, persisted in foregoing any of the precautions which had been mentioned, they should not refrain from believing and expressing their view that, from some mistaken idea of duty, he had made himself the accomplice of men who were conducting this crime in County Clare.

Mr. Roby (Lancashire, S. E., Eccles)

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes 278; Noes 246.—(Division List, No. 202.)

Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided:—Ayes 241; Noes 283.—(Division List, No. 203.)