§ 7. "That a sum, not exceeding £77,151, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for the Salaries, Allowances, Expenses, and Pensions of various County Court Officers, of Commissioners, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision."
§ 8. "That a sum, not exceeding £67,953, (including a Supplementary sum of £1,500), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, 704 for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin."
§ 9. "That a sum, not exceeding £754,557, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)I rise to protest against the action of the Government in taking this Vote on this very last night. It ought to have been put down at a reasonable date in the Session, in order that we might have had an opportunity of fairly and adequately discussing it. When this new rule—and the more I see of its operation the less I like it—was introduced, I think, two years ago, I remember that I pointed out to the Government that it would probably be used for the purpose of closuring and preventing discussion on such subjects as this, and the Government declared that nothing could be imagined more objectionable or further from their idea; and they had no idea of doing anything of the sort. I recollect upon that occasion the right honourable Gentleman the Member for the Bodmin Division of Cornwall, who is an authority that we all recognise on the practice of the House, stated that it was specially essential that, as regards Irish affairs, the Executive Government should give the Irish Members ample and fair and reasonable opportunity of discussing, at all events, the important Votes, and he gave reasons which I think commended themselves generally to the House. I do not call bringing on a Vote like this on the last day, under closure, and then bringing up the Report to-day, in any way giving a fair opportunity to the Irish Members of discussing the Vote. The Government have deliberately carried the Irish Constabulary Vote without giving us any opportunity whatever of discussing it. I do not intend for a single moment to attempt a general discussion on the Constabulary Vote at this period of the Session, because it would be an entirely absurd and impossible task. I rise now simply for the purpose of putting a few questions to the Attorney General in reference to a case which has attracted an immense amount of attention, and which, in its extra- 705 ordinary character, and in its bearings, is one of the most interesting that has ever been disclosed in connection with the administration of justice in Ireland; that is, the case against Sergeant Sullivan at Mulrany. I know that the case is sub judice, and that it would be extremely improper for me to express any opinion or use any language which might, be taken as assuming that the charges were true. I do not assume anything of the kind. All that can be said is that true bills have been found by the Grand Jury. I shall endeavour to confine my observations upon the case exclusively and particularly to the action of the Executive Government in relation to it, and I shall endeavour as far as possible to keep clear from prejudicing the case, or prejudicing the trial. What I complain of is this: Sergeant Sullivan was charged by a private prosecutor, as the right honourable Gentleman knows, with three crimes, any one of which was of the most terrible character. He was charged first with forgery, secondly with incitement to felony, and thirdly, I think, with criminal libel. These charges were based on a letter which was written to a young lad in the neighbourhood, inviting him at a certain hour of the night to "moonlight" a certain man. Now, this letter was signed by a well-known political leader in the neighbourhood, and the charge is that the letter was written and the name of that political leader forged by the police sergeant; that having invited this young man to commit the outrage he then ambushed himself to catch him in the act. On those charges a true bill has been found. But that is not all. Now, Sir, I come to the worst part of the complaint I have to make, which is against the Executive Government. I think everyone will agree.—I think I shall carry the whole Committee with me in saying this—that, under the circumstances I have described, it ought to be the zealous care of the Executive Government in Ireland to remove even the breath of suspicion from their action with regard to a police sergeant charged with a serious crime. But the Executive Government did not do that. The first thing I complain, of is that, immediately after the true bills were found, the sergeant was bailed in court by the district inspector and the county inspector. I 706 say that was a very improper proceeding, because the witnesses who had to come into court and give evidence were poor people resident in the district—resident under the thumb of the district, inspector of police. How can you expect poor men, knowing the system of Ireland, to feel any confidence in the administration of justice when they see the local police officer coming forward in court to bail out a police officer in regard to whom a true bill has been found on a serious crime. The next complaint I have to make is of a much more serious and grave character, because, if my information is correct, Sergeant Sullivan, having been bailed out by the district inspector, went back to Mulrany, and took police charge of the very district in which it was alleged he committed the crimes, and in which the witnesses were resident. And certain incidents have since occurred in that district of a most sinister character, I did not bring with me the notes of the case this afternoon, because I did not know the opportunity would arise of raising the case; but if I recollect right, some days after a true bill was found against him Sergeant Sullivan was sent as an escort in charge of the father of the chief witness against him, who was prosecuted by another policeman on what I am informed was a trumped up charge, and sentenced by Lord Sligo and the bench of local magistrates to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. After the father was taken in charge and carried off to gaol, I am informed that this young man, the witness, came and endeavoured to speak to his father, but this policeman, who is lying under these terrible charges, was in full possession of power and authority, and refused permission to allow him to address a few words to his father. Now, if that is true, it arouses in the minds of the public, and in our minds, a very grave suspicion that a system of gross intimidation is being carried on against those poor witnesses. Then it was alleged that a brother policeman, whose name is mixed up with Sergeant Sullivan's—a young man named Constable Brennan, I think—had gone wrong, and illegally gone around and illegally entered the houses of some of the witnesses and relatives, and searched them without a warrant, notwithstanding the protests of the occupants. That is a 707 very preposterous circumstance, and is calculated to intimidate witnesses and impede the administration of justice; and it is alleged positively that Sergeant Sullivan himself, when in Castlebar awaiting his trial, boasted that they might do what they liked, but that ha would have authority in Mulrany still. Sir, I put a question to the Attorney General a short time ago on this point, and he told us that Sergeant Sullivan had been suspended from police duty, I think on the 20th July; but if my memory is correct that is a considerable period after the true bills had been found. I remember now—the true bills were found long before the 20th July. I think he was in authority for some time after the true bill was found. But, be that as it may, the impression, according to the information I have, in the district amongst the people was that he was in full authority, and I do hold that a policeman, who held a position of authority, such as that of a sergeant in a police barracks, and who is going to be tried on these terrible charges, ought not to remain in the district. Men are moved about continually from one quarter of the country, to another. I hold that a policeman ought not to be, even apparently, on duty in a district while that charge is hanging over his head. If he is tried and acquitted, then I presume he will return to duty; but a man lying under a criminal charge, a charge of an odious character, ought not to be in a position of even apparent authority, particularly in the district where the witnesses against him actually reside. I put this to the right honourable Gentleman: supposing that he was suspended from police duty, but resides in barracks, how will you persuade the unfortunate people in the district—the poor people who are under the thumb of the police to an extent entirely unknown in this country—that this Sergeant Sullivan, who has been in the habit of exercising authority, although he may be nominally suspended from authority, will not exercise it in fact? I am positively assured that within a few days after the evidence had been given another of the witnesses was summoned by the police of Mulrany for a technical offence—that is to say, allowing his horse to go down to drink at a stream, a thing he had been doing for six or seven 708 years without any interference, without any reference to any one of the small by-laws which no one thinks of enforcing. Immediately after he gave evidence against the sergeant he was summoned and a considerable fine inflicted. These are matters which I put before the right honourable Gentleman according to the information sent to me. I think they are matters requiring his careful consideration. I confidently hope that he will see that not only are the witnesses uninterfered with, not only will he see that Sergeant Sullivan has no power or authority on the spot until his trial has been concluded, but that he will see it is made manifest, to the people that he has no authority, and that the Government are determined to see fair play done in this matter, and that he will see no incidents occur which are calculated to impress the minds of the people with the idea that the Government are backing up the action of the police, or with the idea that the prosecution would not be conducted in the same spirit as against an ordinary member of the public. I think I am entitled to demand that from the right honourable Gentleman. I urge that it is not prudent, even in the interests of the Government—I speak entirely in the interests of the Government and of the police themselves—that a man lying under such charges as these, which have been alleged against Sergeant Sullivan, should be bailed out by his own commanding officer and by the county inspector of Mayo.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)The first point complained of by the honourable Member was that this Vote had been postponed to so late a period of the Session. I think the honourable Member will see that the number of days given to Irish Supply was very ample.
§ MR. DILLONI took that very point Three days were devoted last year and the year before, and I complained of it repeatedly, through the proper channels, and this year we are put off with two.
§ MR. ATKINSONThree days.
§ MR. DAVITTFour days were allowed last year.
§ MR. ATKINSONThe Government say that, if there is any general desire expressed that any particular class of Supply should be taken on one night more than another, all arrangements possible will be made to meet that desire. Now, the honourable Member was anxious to say nothing that would prejudice either the prosecution or the accused in this case of Sergeant Sullivan. I regret that the honourable Member did not more closely adhere to the rule he laid down for himself in the beginning of his remarks. He has dealt with two matters in reference to this man Sullivan—first, as regards the man himself, and then as regards the conduct of his police officers in giving bail. He seemed to suggest that a system of petty persecution and intimidation is resorted to by his fellow policemen at the station to which he was formerly attached. I regret extremely that he did not give me soma notice that the second charge was about to be made. It takes me entirely by surprise. I am not furnished with any information at the present moment which enables me to deal with it, inasmuch as until the honourable Member mentioned it I never heard it suggested. With regard to the other parts of the case, my recollection is that the very moment true bills were found against Sullivan, and a communication was made to the Inspector General of that result, Sullivan was relieved from duty, not suspended, because suspension carries with it a kind of punishment, and would suggest a kind of pronouncement on the case. He was most properly relieved from duty, as while the charge remains open, and he is not cleared from the charge, he is unfit for duty. I recognise this as strongly as the honourable Member. I think it was rather unfortunate that it was not insisted that he should leave the barracks Now, my recollection of the incident is that I at once communicated with the authorities with regard to the matter. I believe the man was arrested, but although Sergeant Sullivan marched with the escort he had no sort of communication, either direct or indirect, with the prisoner, nor did he take command of the escort. With regard to the two other officers, I know of no person better 710 calculated to prevent the man from running away than the policeman in the barracks, who, if the man did run away, would be responsible. As for the fact that two of his brother policemen became sureties for him, I am unable to see any impropriety in that, and nothing could be more extraordinary and absurd than to suggest that this was done to intimidate the Irish peasantry. With regard to the other suggestion of the honourable Member, I regret that he did not make some inquiry before he stated that without any legal warrant or authority the officer began to search.
§ MR. DILLONI can only speak from what information was placed in my own hands. The reason I did not give the right honourable Gentleman notice of this matter is that I had no chance of doing so. I understand that this search was made without a warrant, and that the men remonstrated.
§ MR. ATKINSONI can scarcely believe it possible that——
§ MR. DILLONOf course I accept the explanation of the right honourable Gentleman.
§ MR. ATKINSONThe honourable Gentleman asks that everything which is just and right should be dome to bring this man to justice, so that he may be convicted if guilty. Now, I can, with the greatest pleasure, give him that assurance in this case as I could in every other case, that everything will be done to do justice to both sides.
§ MR. DILLONI only ask that he should be prosecuted like other people.
§ MR. ATKINSONNothing will be done to prejudice him unjustly. That assurance I give with the greatest possible pleasure.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORI have not the smallest suspicion that the right honourable Gentleman will carry out the assurance which he to the House. At the same time I think I may say that I am justified in being a little shocked at the statement of the right honourable Gentleman. Now, what has happened? 711 There is a strong class feeling going on in this district. Now, I will say nothing whatever as to whether this man is guilty or innocent, for he has to be tried by a jury of his own countrymen, and it would be most unfair to do so. The man is charged with a very serious offence—that of abusing his position as a guardian of the peace by exciting to outrage and to throw the charge of that excitement upon other people. Now, that is a very serious charge, and you could not have a more serious charge against a guardian of the peace. Now, this man has not been removed from duty, and to all intents and purposes this officer is still placed in the same position of confidence and authority as he was before he was charged. The Attorney General says that there is nothing extraordinary or out of the way in his superior officers going bail for him. Now, I am not going to appeal very strongly on that point, but I do say that the general inference drawn by the public with regard to bail is that the man who gives the bail is in sympathy with the man for whom he gives the bail. In any case, where the conduct of the police is called into question I think it is most unfortunate that anything should be done which will indicate that whatever a policeman might do he can always rely upon the support and sympathy of his superiors. Therefore I think that the action of these superior officers in giving bail in this case was most unfortunate. Now, I am not going to lay as much stress upon that fact as upon some others. The facts are these. I start from the point of view in the consideration of this question that there is class feeling in this particular district at this very moment. There is a bench of magistrates, and they belong practically to one class, and human nature would be superhuman and it would be blind to obvious facts if it did not infer that the bench of magistrates had very strong sympathy with one of the parties. Now, what happens? Why, the father of one of the chief witnesses against this constable is brought up on a, charge, and he is brought up before the magistrates consisting of members of one class in this county. I understand that he was convicted. I do say that to be charged and convicted before a certain kind of bench of members of one class 712 in a county would not be regarded in this country as being fair. But I pass that by. The man was convicted, and then as he is being brought to gaol one of the men who form his escort is the very sergeant of police who is going to be put on his trial, and against whom the son of the prisoner is a witness. Now, Mr. speaker, I ask would such a state of things be possible or tolerated for one hour in this country? Here you have this officer charged escorting this person, and how can you expect the inhabitants of this district to have confidence in the administration of justice when at this very moment their enemies hold the balance of power in the magisterial court? They feel that there is no justice for them, but at least they have got the Attorney General to act and to take up their cause in so far as to put this sergeant on trial at the initiative and expense of the Government, and so far so good. Now, what happens? This man whom the Attorney General is going to prosecute is seen in his old position of sergeant, farming part of an escort taking to gaol the father of the chief witness against him. The Attorney General calls it unfortunate, but I call it shameful. I call it a flagitious travesty of all the rules of order and decency which should govern the conduct of such proceedings. I am very sorry indeed for the House, for I should have liked the speech of the right honourable Gentleman, able and frank as it was, to have been heard by every Unionist Member of this House, because I think nothing would bring home to the minds of Unionist Members more forcibly the feeling of incurable and deep-rooted suspicion which the Irish people, have of the administration of the law in Ireland.
§ Question put.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
Motion made, and Question put—
10. "That a sum, not exceeding £69,096, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for the Expenses of the General Prisons Board in Ireland, and of the Prisons under their control, and of the Registration of Habitual Criminals.
§ Agreed to.
713§ 11. "That a sum, not exceeding £54,936, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for the Expenses of Reformatory and industrial Schools in Ireland."
§ 12. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,955, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1899, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland."
§ Agreed to.