HC Deb 10 July 1902 vol 110 cc1443-71

Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £33,517, be granted to His 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, 1903, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland."

(9.0.) MR. FLYNN (Cork Co., N.)

said they might call this the second chapter of Irish misgovernment, the first chapter of which they had discussed up to 7.30. The feature was the extravagance of the Department, but misgovernment was bound to be accompanied by extravagance and corruption. This Vote had not been discussed at length in recent years. At Question time they had frequently called attention to matters connected with the Attorney General and criminal law and charges in Ireland, but it was five or six years since they had discussed and gone into the matter. It was, in his opinion, impossible for anyone who conscientiously went through the Estimates and Irish Supply not to be struck with the bloated and extravagant sum there set forth. Under the four heads which comprised that Vote and which formed one great Department, they found that in England the cost was £553,000, while the similar Department in Ireland cost £283,375, more than one half the cost of the same Department in England. So that in a country like England and Wales with its population, great prosperity, and its enormous business, similar items in Ireland cost more than 50 per cent. These legal expenses in connection with the administration of the law cost in England 4d. per head, while in Ireland the cost was 1s. 3d. per head. These were figures which could only give rise to grave reflection by all thoughtful men. There was no doubt that these extravagant figures in connection with the so-called administration of justice could be accounted for on only one ground, namely, misgovernment. The Attorney General's salary was £5,000, but there was something additional for contentious business which was put at £1,000, for which the Attorney and Solicitor General's names stood together. It was an extraordinary thing that notwithstanding the fluctuations which occurred, this contentious business stood at the uniform figure of £1,000. That sum might really be looked upon as a very comfortable honorarium to quite a nominal salary. But was the right hon. Gentleman cheap or dear to Ireland at £5,000?


Oh, very cheap!


Some people might say he would be cheap at any price, but let them recollect that a poor country like Ireland, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might sit on the Treasury Bench and draft a few amendments to Irish bills and coach the Chief Secretary in bad law, had to pay him half the salary received by the President of the United States. No one doubted the estimable private qualities of the right hon. Gentleman, but was it fair or just that a poor country like Ireland, with a declining population and dwindling resources and admittedly almost crimeless, should have to pay such a price. But the Attorney-General had other duties, and a fearful and lurid light had been thrown on the methods adopted by the debate which had taken place that evening. That debate had disclosed to some extent the system of jury packing which was practised throughout Ireland, and had thrown a fierce light on the doubtful and devious ways of Dublin Castle. The Attorney-General himself candidly confessed to jury packing, but pointing the finger of scorn at the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries, said there was more jury packing during the three years of the last Administration than during the six years he had been in office. That was no answer, even if the figures of the right hon. Gentleman could be accepted. He had made a particular study of this question, and had made an analysis of the figures, and during the past four years had given case after case of this terrible system. Only the other day he threw out of his locker sheaves and sheaves of cases, and he could give particulars of the various winter and summer assizes at which juries had been packed, and on the facts and figures he said the Attorney-General had reduced or elevated, in an infamous sense, jury packing to such a naked and unblushing system that all decency had left it. At the last summer assizes in Cork what did they find? In the case of a wretched man charged with stealing 10s., forty-five jurors were ordered to stand by, forty-three being Catholics. In a case of petty larceny, forty-six were ordered to stand by, while in the case of two brothers charged with manslaughter fifty-two were ordered to stand by, fifty of whom were Roman Catholics. In the Tallow case tried at Cork he forgot how many were ordered to stand by at the preceding trial at Waterford, but at Cork thirty-three jurors were ordered to stand by, thirty being Roman Catholics. It became tiresome to repeat these figures time after time and to get the stereotyped reply. They had heard something of the Sheridan cases, and how this man went into the box and perjured himself over and over again against innocent men. But what would his perjury prevail if they had independent juries? Why, in one case, the prosecution carefully excluded sixty men and packed the jury with men whom they knew nothing short of a light from Heaven would induce to find a verdict of not guilty. In another case there was something even more pathetic. The unfortunate man who was upon his trial, though innocent, upon the advice of his solicitor pleaded guilty, because the solicitor told him ho had no chance before the packed jury. He had drawn attention to case after case at Cork, only to be laughed to scorn by the Attorney General. Such things were horrible in the 20th century. That was the system in which the right hon. Gentleman was connected, that was the system in which to some extent he seemed to take a professional pride in beholding. He hoped that if it had not received its deathblow by that debate, it would at least be found to be badly wounded. How could the Irish people be expected to respect the law, when its whole administration was reduced to such a sham and farce? What respect could any one have for the so-called trial by jury? It reminded him of the lines of an old poet, who, writing of the peasant of the day, depicting him as truly destitute of any chance of fair play and justice, wrote—

  1. "Just after the war in the year 98,
  2. As soon as the boys were all scattered and bate
  3. 'T was the custom whenever a peasant was got
  4. To hang him by threat barrin' such as was shot.
  5. 'T was them was bad times for the honest gassoon,
  6. If he missed a policeman he met a dragoon,
  7. And whether soldiers or judges gave sentence,
  8. Devil much time was allowed for repentance."
They did not now use the dragoon, but the system remained, and if the Irish people submitted to this injustice without protest and resentment they would be unworthy the freedom to which they hoped to aspire in a short time.


said the Government had never, since the exposure of the Pigott forgeries, had a worse case to answer than that of Sheridan. His belief was that any one who studied the administration of justice in Ireland, and especially the administration of the criminal law, must be driven to the conclusion that it was as corrupt as it was in England in the time of the Stuarts, when precisely the same methods were employed and exactly the same abuses obtained, thanks to the jury system which the Government were using. That was the jury system in Ireland at the present day. It might be the palladium openly, but in reality it was nothing but the merest form. It was very much the drapery by which in Ireland they hid the bayonets of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Chief Secretary had done in Ireland now what was done in the time of the Stuarts. Obsolete and rusty statutes and principles of common law had been revived to aid in the persecution of the people. Not only was there jury packing and Sheridans in the witness box, but counsel who held briefs for the defence in political trials had been known to betray their clients by giving secrets to the prosecuting counsel. Jury-packing seemed a mild method of abusing the forms of procedure when compared with that. This jury-packing was not the fault of the Attorney General for Ireland; it was the fault of the system which went on. The trial of every criminal case in Ireland showed one salient point of difference from the trial of criminal cases in England. The first thing that was done was to select the jury. The evidence was of very little consequence provided the right jury was there. But there was another thing which must strike everyone who was acquainted with legal practice. As a rule when no witnesses were called for the defence counsel for the defence had the last word. In Ireland when no witnesses were called for the defence, counsel for the Crown had the last word; and every lawyer knew the enormous value of that. When Crown Counsel had the last word comments cunningly made might give a new or altered construction to the case, and the prisoner's counsel had no means of rebutting what had been said. Not only were the juniors challenged by the Crown in all cases, whether felonies or misdemeanours, but certain crimes were now treated as misdemeanours, which formerly came under the other category. This was done in order to prevent the panel from having the right of challenge at all. That was the way the palladium of liberty was preserved in Ireland. In Crown prosecutions in England only the truth was aimed at, but in Ireland the whole aim was to get a conviction. In Ireland the prosecuting counsel regarded a conviction very much as a Red Indian regarded a scalp to put into his belt. In Ireland, Crown prosecutors, of whom there were about fifty, were a caste. In England a man took a brief for the Crown in the ordinary way, but in Ireland the idea was by securing convictions to gain promotion. Before corning to the English bar, the late Lord Russell of Killowen practised for years as a solicitor in Ireland, and he had an utter distrust of the administration of the criminal law. On 22nd March, 1888, speaking in this House, Lord Russell, who was then Sir Charles Russell, said— In Ireland, whether rightly or wrongly, under the existing system, a widespread distrust of the administration of the law was unquestionably felt. And Lord Russell then quoted a remark made by a friend of his from the North of Ireland, who, contrasting what he had witnessed at the Old Bailey with what he knew of criminal trials in Ireland, said— In Ireland it is a scramble on the part of those who represent the Crown to secure a conviction. These were the words of the gentleman who afterwards became Lord Chief Justice of England. Lord James of Hereford said something stronger. His words were— He did not think it was possible to assert that the conduct of criminal cases in Ireland was exactly the same as it was in England. Anyone who had watched the conduct of criminal case in England would know that no prosecuting counsel ever thought of exercising any ingenuity to secure a conviction. The Judge was always careful that no prosecuting counsel should for a moment exceed the line of his duty. The Solicitor General for Ireland, who received a large official salary, also undertook private practice, and only a few weeks ago a Crown case came before a court in Dublin. The judge inquired why the law-officers of the Crown were not present, and he was informed that the Solicitor General was earning guineas upstairs as counsel in a Private Bill Procedure case. In the large sum which was charged for law expenses to solicitors there would be included, he supposed, the fees of the gentleman who acted for the Solicitor General in the Irish Court. Mr. Campbell, the Solicitor General, abused paid members, but it appeared to be consistent with his own sense of duty to dip his hand as deep as he could into the public purse to pay a deputy for the performance of work he was himself paid by the Government to perform. The Daily Express, writing in regard to Jury-packing in Ireland, said that trial by jury for political offences had ever been more or less of a make-believe or pretence in Ireland, and, down to the present time, the Crown had only succeeded in asserting the law by such an arrangement of the jury system as they could rely upon. Another matter which required most serious attention was the expenses for actions taken against resident magistrates and other judges, a Vote for which was down on the Estimates. The meaning of that was that if these men perpetrated an illegality and were sued for it, t he people who had been actually wronged by them were required to pay the indemnity. That was the degradation and blasphemy of justice. In February 1888, the right hon. the member for Montrose burghs in the course of a speech said that a despotic Government might be strong, but there was no Government so weak as the Government which, under the forms of freedom, practised despotism. That was not a very unfair description of the Government of Ireland at the present day.

*(10.0.) MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

said he desired to draw attention to certain prosecutions which had taken place in his constituency, County Clare. On the 23rd of June he had put a Question to the Chief Secretary in regard to a Mr. Linnane and some other gentlemen in Ennis who had been imprisoned for conspiracy. When he was proceeding to ask for further information, the Speaker told him he could not do so by means of Questions across the floor of the House, and that he must elicit the information in Committee of Supply.† That was, therefore, why he wished to call the attention of the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General to what appeared to him to be a most unwarrantable state of affairs in the county he represented. That county was to day not only one of the most crimeless in Ireland or the United Kingdom, but one of the most crimeless districts in the whole civilised world. At the last two Quarter Sessions the Judge was presented with white gloves, and at the last Summer Assizes the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, who was a native of the county found there was no business, and congratulated the Grand Jury on the condition of the county. There was, he said, much improvement and no Bill to go before them. He was sure it would be a surprise to those Englishmen and Scotchmen who took any interest at all in Irish affairs to hear that in County Clare, which was in such a peaceable condition, several of its most prominent inhabitants were in prison under the operation not of the ordinary law, but of what was called the Crimes Act, and which they in Ireland called the Coercion Act. That was a state of affairs that could not possibly exist in England or Scotland, or indeed in any other portion I of the British Empire. Who were these gentlemen who were in prison? Mr. † See preceding volume, page 1388. Linnane was the Chairman of the Ennis Town Commissioners, the chief town of the county, a gentleman who, on account of his position, was a magistrate and administered the ordinary law at Petty Sessions. He bore the highest possible character in every way in the town in which he lived. The second gentleman was the Chairman of the Corofin District Council, who also was a magistrate and administered the law at Petty Sessions. The third was Mr. Griffy, a gentleman 72 years of ago, who was Chairman of the Corofin Board of Guardians. There were several other gentlemen imprisoned under the Coercion Act, but he would not refer more particularly to them than to say that, in their own localities, they were held in the highest respect, and had never been guilty of any crime in the ordinary sense of the term. He knew that it was very difficult in the House to get English and Scottish Members to understand Irish affairs, as was shown by the state of the Benches. There was no great disposition on the part of English and Scottish members to come there and receive enlightenment on Irish affairs from the representatives of Ireland. He maintained that the condition of the Benches outside the Irish Benches, was in itself a proof that some system of government in Ireland was necessary, other than the existing system, which enabled Gentlemen to come into the Chamber and vote at the end of a debate which they had not heard, and of which they knew absolutely nothing. He might be allowed to put to the few English Members present the position he was placed in at the present time. They heard of crimes and outrages and disorder in Ireland, but he stated on the floor of the House, as the elected representative of the County Clare, that there was not the slightest vestige of crime in that district; and yet some of their leading and best men were imprisoned as common criminals. English Members might say what they liked about Ireland, and might hold what view they liked about the action of Irish Members in this House; but he ventured to say that there was no English or Scotch Member who, if he found himself in the position in which he was placed, would not do the utmost in his power to expose the monstrous condition in which they were situated. The three gentlemen he had referred to were in prison on the charge of criminal conspiracy, but they had not had the opportunity, as they would have had had they lived in this country, of having their case tried in the ordinary way by a jury. They had been sent to prison by a movable magistrate. According to the Chief Secretary they had been sent to prison because they sought "to compel certain persons not to occupy land of which they were in lawful occupation;" He was in a position to absolutely deny that there was in this instance any criminal conspiracy whatever. If there was, then he took a greater part in that conspiracy than any of the gentlemen now in prison. What took place? There was a dispute in reference to a certain farm in the town of Corofin. There was a difference as to which particular family was entitled to occupy that farm, and a public meeting was called to consider the matter. As Member for the county he was present at the meeting, and so also was the hon. Member for Limerick. There was absolutely nothing to conceal. It was an ordinary open air meeting in the light of day with speeches delivered before the whole world. Not a single word was uttered at that meeting calculated to cause crime, outrage, or violence of any kind. On the contrary, in all the speeches the people were strongly advised, while they exercised the right of combination, such as was enjoyed by the tradespeople and working classes of this country, not to do anything which would give their enemies the slightest handle against them. He was stating those facts in order to show that the prosecutions ordered by the Government were absolutely without any right or foundation whatever. Before the public meeting took place, a Convention was held in the Board room of the Workhouse, and delegates came to it from all parts of the county. There was nothing secret about it, any more than at any meeting of the Primrose League. They had hardly taken their places in the Board room, when a force of policemen marched into the room and took up a position as if they were on guard. If the Chief Secretary wanted to have a recurrence of crime and violence in County Clare, he could not do better than he had done on that occasion. The people were provoked, because they felt it an insult that their private meeting should be interfered with in that way; and it was only because the hon. Member for Limerick and himself exercised all their powers of persuasion in calming the people that the peace was not broken and the policemen assaulted. They told the policemen they had no right to be present, and the Chairman of the Ennis Town Commissioners, as a magistrate, called upon them to withdraw as there was no warrant for their presence. That gentleman was now in prison, and one of the charges against him was that he asked the policemen to withdraw on that occasion. Arising out of the proceedings at that meeting there was a libel action against a newspaper which was tried in Dublin, and the presiding judge, Mr. Justice Gibson, declared that, having gone into all the circumstances of the case, he was of opinion that the dispute which had unfortunately arisen was in the course of being settled by negotiation in the most friendly spirit between the tenants who had been displaced, and the other side, and the landlord. A verdict for the defendant was returned, largely on the opinion of the judge. It was in connection with that dispute that the three prominent gentlemen he had referred to were in prison at the present time, sent there by two magistrates under the Coercion Act. An appeal was taken from the decision of the two magistrates to the County Court judge who said he had to administer the Act as he found it, and he regretted having to confirm the sentence, but in doing so he paid a high tribute to the gentlemen referred to.

He protested as strongly as he could against the Coercion Act being put into operation with the result of imprisoning the most prominent men in the district where there was absolutely no crime. He desired to ask the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General to justify in some way, if they could, the exercise of coercion in a county where there was absolutely no crime. There was competition for certain land in the county, and the tenants had come together to consider the matter on the model of the Trade Unions in this country. The landlords of Ireland had combined in a particularly strong way, and were working together in their own interests. Why, then, should not the tenants be allowed to combine in their own interests? in the past there was a great deal of violence in Clare, but he said deliberately, as one of the Members for the county, that it was altogether due to the fact that the people were deprived of the right of combination. They did not understand how to look after their own interests by methods of organization, and they were driven to take up the weapons of violence and outrage. What was it to be in Clare and other counties in Ireland in the future? If men like Mr. Lehane and Mr. Flanagan, who were looked up to and respected by the people, who were magistrates, and who had counselled the people to avoid violence and crime and to put their trust in organization, were cast into prison, and treated as common malefactors, under the operation of an extraordinary law, the combination of the people might decline, but nothing was more absolutely certain than that moonlighting would come into existence again. The people would say, what was the use of combining peaceably, when men in responsible positions were cast into prison as ordinary malefactors. They would say that the only way of attracting attention to their grievances, and of getting them remedied, was to take weapons in their hands and wreak vengeance on their oppressors. That certainly was not what the Irish Members wanted, or what any man connected with the Irish organization wanted. In the past, before methods of organization were adopted, the people had to rely almost altogether on outrage and crime in order to have attention drawn to their grievances. The Irish Members had endeavoured to teach the people to combine peaceably, as people combined in England, and to turn them from methods of violence into channels of peaceable organization. Their efforts were met by the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General casting leading members of the organization into prison. He said, with great regret and foreboding, that if that course was continued by the Government, there would be an end to the absence of violence and crime which now happily existed in Ireland.

There was no justification whatever for enforcing coercion in Clare. There was no crime, there was no outrage, there was no serious disturbance of the peace. The people were attending to their business, and were applying themselves to carrying out the powers invested in them by the Local Government Board Act, as best they could. There was only one explanation for the exercise of coercion, and that was that the Government were making themselves the tools and servants of the Irish landlords. The fact that men were imprisoned in Clare, would not make the county any the more peaceful. It might help, perhaps, to break down the organisation of the people and destroy their confidence in peaceful methods, which was evidently what was wanted at the present time. It was a thousand pities that the Chief Secretary, the Attorney General, and those responsible for law and order in Ireland, could not rest satisfied and content when they saw the once turbulent county of Clare in a peaceable condition, and that they could not refrain from provoking and irritating the people by having recourse to the extraordinary methods of coercion. He would ask the Attorney General to justify, by anything that existed in Clare, the exercise of coercion in that county. He would also ask him to explain how it was that some of the men now in prison were sentenced to hard labour while others were not, although they were all convicted for the same so-called offence. He failed to understand, and the people of the district failed to understand, the distinction. Of course, he would not be in order in referring to the previous debate, but he might be permitted to say that at the time when there was outrage in Clare, some of it took the abominable form—a form which filled every man in Ireland with the utmost disgust—of mutilating dumb animals. These outrages had been condemned over and over again. Public Boards had passed resolutions denouncing them, and it would be impossible to meet a single person in Ireland who would endeavour to palliate or excuse them in any way whatever. The Government had recently admitted that some of these abominable outrages were planned and carried out by the agents of the Government. One of those agents was in the very district in Clare where those outrages most mysteriously occurred, and the people had never been able to discover how they occurred. That was a most significant thing, which he thought ought to receive the attention of the Government. He could assure Hon. Members that the Irish Members had no higher desire than that in districts like Clare the energy, the resolution, and the determination of the people should be directed into proper and legitimate channels. That was the object of the organization which the Attorney General had struck at. They desired to combine lawfully, and by "lawfully" he meant according to the law which obtained in. England and Scotland, as well as in the Empire at large. They had largely succeeded. During the ten years he had represented one of the Divisions of Clare, the whole conditions of agitation in that county had changed. The people, instead of giving way to fits of violence, addressed themselves, as their leaders advised them, to the work of organization, with the result that the county was tranquil. There was now no work at assizes or quarter sessions, and white gloves were given to the judges; and yet the Government were not content with that state of peace, but attempted to provoke and irritate the people, almost beyond endurance, by imprisoning the very man for whom they had the most respect. What he had said of Clare could, he believed, be said of every other county in Ireland where coercion was enforced. Could the Attorney General point to any district in England where there was no work at assizes, where the judges received white gloves, and where yet the Chairmen of most of the leading Boards, as well as many of their Members, were in prison. Such a state of things could not exist in Great Britain or in any other part of the Empire, except in Ireland. He knew Clare pretty well, and he could tell the Attorney General with regret, that he believed if coercion were continued in that country, and if men who had a restraining influence on the people were cast into prison, there would be plenty of work at assizes in future, and there would be no more gloves for the judges. He did not gay that by way of threat or from a desire that there should be a change from the present peaceable condition of the county, but the people were so circumstanced that they should do something. They were discontented and dissatisfied with the present system of land tenure. In the name of law and order—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] The hon. Member opposite was a first class representative of the arrogant, self sufficient Tory minority in Ireland. The Irish Members on that side represented four-fifths of the people of Ireland, and they were endeavouring to state moderately and reasonably what they believed to be the opinion of their people. The hon. Gentleman opposite was impregnated with the ideas of hon. Gentlemen around him.


I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the subject of criminal prosecutions.


said he hoped he would be allowed to state moderately, reasonably, and quietly, what he had been sent to the House of Commons to state. He had been doing that until he was deliberately interrupted by the hon. Gentleman, who, however, was perhaps not worth taking any notice of. He would appeal in the name of law and order—names so often misused by hon. Gentlemen representing the minority in Ireland—that the people should be allowed to agitate for their rights on lines of combination similar to those adopted by trades unionists in England and throughout the Empire, and that their leaders should not be cast into prison. If that course were not adopted by the Government, he could assure the Chief Secretary and Attorney General that the people would not be terrorised, and that the result would be that once more there would be outrage and violence and dark crime in Clare, and many other counties in Ireland.

(10.36.) MR. ARCHDALE (Fermanagh, N.)

, said he was very glad to hear the hon. Member repudiate outrages on cattle, and he was perfectly sure that every hon. Member on the Nationalist benches was as much opposed to those dastardly out rages as the hon. Member who had spoken. But he should have liked to have heard the hon. member repudiate them ten or fifteen years ago.


said he was sure the hon. Gentleman who now represented his old constituency had no desire to misrepresent him by insinuating that he had not at all times repudiated and denounced such outrages. The hon. Member was altogether mistaken.


said he quite accepted the hon. Member's explanation. The hon. gentleman did once represent his constituency on a bogus electorate, but he had not the least antipathy to him on that account.


The hon. Member must confine himself to the subject of criminal prosecution.


said it was rather extraordinary to hear the hon. Member opposite state that if organization was put down in Clare crime arid outrage would follow. One of the greatest Members of the House of Commons, the late Mr. Gladstone, said that crime always dogged the footsteps of the Land League. It was perfectly well known to all students of Irish history that where there was organization in a county there was crime in that county. His own county of Fermanagh was very free from organization, and consequently free from crime. He knew the country for twenty years as well as Any man. He had taken a strong political part in his own county, he knew the feelings of the farmers, and he knew that if they were not terrorised by the organization which the Chief Secretary was rightly trying to put down, they would live in peace and happiness. He was glad to say that white gloves to judges were getting frequent, and even at the last assizes in Sligo the learned judge commented on the great improvement which had taken place since the spring Assizes. He, however, firmly believed that if Ireland were only firmly governed there was nothing more that she wanted.

MR. THOMASSHAW (Hawick Burghs)

said he would not have taken part in the debate were it not for the appeal which had been addressed from the Irish Benches to the Front Opposition Bench. He, at any rate, was not shaken in his faith that there was only one radical cure for all these ailments in Ireland. He desired to place on record his surprise at the action of the Crown authorities in the Sheridan case. There was no man who could sympathise more than he could with the action of the Crown authorities in circumstances of great public difficulty, but what happened in the Sheridan case? A member of the Constabulary, bound as a police officer to prevent and detect crime, became a perpetrator of crime of the most atroeious description—the crime of maiming cattle against which they all protested—and ho became the perpetrator of those crimes with the infamous design of fathering them on others. It seemed incredible that, having formed that design he was able to carry it out, through the assistance of the Crown, and that the victims he had selected were put in the dock and tried. What would have been done in Scotland? A man prosecuted by the Crown would be tried by a jury, but the privilege of setting aside jurors would be limited to five persons, except in special cases. In Ireland the Crown prosecutor was in a, position to set back as many jurors as he liked. The whole thing from beginning to end read like a frightful romance. It would be impossible for it to occur in any properly governed country, and yet it went on in Ireland, They were asked to believe that that was an isolated case, and with regard to that, he heard, with a certain measure of approval, the remarks of the hon. Member of South Tyrone. He could not himself credit that Sheridan was a type of the Irish policemen, but, on the other hand, he wished to say after some intimate experience of the working of the criminal law that it would be impossible for such a gross and terrible case to have occurred, without other cases having previously occurred which had not seen the light. The system of jury packing stood condemned in the lurid light of the, Sheridan case. For himself, ho shrank with a feeling of frightful antipathy from the prospects of Ireland under a system of jury packing or unpacking by which thirty, forty, and even sixty jurors could be set aside. That showed how difficult was the task of the Attorney General in Ireland, to whom he thought too little sympthy had been extended, for he was an officer for the administration of a system which was totally impossible under democratic rule. It would be far better to abolish trial by jury in Ireland, than poison justice at its fountain head. If a judge did wrong through prejudice he could be impeached, but they could not impeach a jury. The system was wholly bad, and a radical cure was required. How was it to be obtained? The people were the true guardians of the law, and until they were given self-government they would decline so accept laws with which they had no sympathy, and in the ordinary administration of which they had no share. He might be asked if he was still a Home Ruler. He was; and the revelations they had heard that day made him more of a Home Ruler than ever. He was convinced that it was only by a system under which the people of. Ireland would be responsible through their representatives for framing and administering their own law, that there ever would be law and order in Ireland. The hon. Member for North Fermanagh said that the present condition in Ireland was altogether due to agitation. But they should not condemn agitation. Nothing could be done without agitation, and as a friend of his remarked, they could not even make butter without agitation. He would cite a passage from Burke with reference to the laws proseribing Catholies in every walk in life, which was applicable to the present system— It is a thoroughly barbarous system. It is an outrage of all the laws of humanity and the rights of nature. It is a system as well fitted for the oppression, imprisonment, and degradation of the people and for the debasement of human nature, as has ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man. That was applicable to the system revealed during the debate that day. Sydney Smith, who quoted that passage from Burke, added the following comment— Some people hold that that there will not be peace in Ireland until skates and codfish are swimming over the top of it. That was Sydney Smith's scathing comment. His own comment (the hon. Member's) was more hopeful. He was for the radical cure of self-government to which he stedfastly adhered; all the more because of the revelations he had heard today. He would put it to the Attorney General for Ireland whether, when they had a case such as the Sheridan case, the better method of procedure would not be to attack it more firmly; and, in the second place, could not the Executive in Ireland manage to administer the law, not under a system of antipathy to the people but of sympathy with them. He did not know why Sheridan was not prosecuted. He declined absolutely to accept the two excuses which had been put forward. He declined to accept the statement that Sheridan had been given an indemnity. He did not think that any responsible officer would have given an indemnity to a blackguard of that description. They should take Sheridan as having committed the offences. He should have been tried, and all possible evidence, including the evidence of the men who were now proved to be innocent, should have been submitted in order to secure his conviction. There was a lamentable lack of firmness throughout in connection with the case. He hoped that the revelations they had heard might incline the hearts of the Irish administration towards a little more sympathy for the great masses of the people in Ireland. It he was not mistaken the quasi-political criminal cases known as agrarian were going to spread all over Ireland. He lamented the time when there would extend to Ulster a feeling of hostility to the laws of the land; and, therefore, it was important, in the interests of law and order, that the Irish Executive should show more sympathy with the people on the one hand, and that when they had such a blackguardly case as the Sheridan case that they should deal with it with more firmness.

*(11.0.) MR. ATKINSON

said he did not propose to attempt to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman into the intricacies of Scotch law and practice; nor did he venture, for a moment, to question the sincerity of his appeal and the strength of his hope as to what might be brought about in Ireland by different methods. Men had gone to Ireland as sincere and as hopeful as the hon. and learned Gentleman, but they only had to get into touch with the actualities of the situation to very soon find out that it was not all the plain sailing they imagined. Mr. Forster went to Ireland confident in the belief that he could bring about peace and order, as no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman thought he could. He was followed by others, who came back, in many cases, disheartened, but at all events convinced that it was not the easy matter they had thought. He did not intend to enter into any length into Sheridan's case. That had been dealt with by his right hon. friend. He only wished to mention one or two things for the purpose of removing misconception. He understood it had been admitted that no fault could be found with the Government for not prosecuting Sheridan in Ryan's case. He said, with some experience of criminal law, that that would have been an absolute impossibility. It was said that Sheridan got an indemnity. He got no indemnity. [An HON. MEMBER: You said he did.] He never said anything of the kind. His right lion, friend, having suspicions, determined at all hazards to ascertain the truth, and was obliged to obtain information from certain constables who were colleagues of Sheridan, under the promise that they would not in any way suffer for it. Under that promise they confessed that in some instances they were practically accomplices, and that in other instances they had not disclosed that Sheridan was an offender. Hon. Members attributed to every Irish official, not only stupidity, but also a base and wicked desire to do everything that was wrong, everything that was unjust, and to resort to corruption, crime, and fraud. But he put it to hon. Members that if one of them had given a pledge to any particular man that if he told a certain thing he would not suffer for it, would he think he was fulfilling his promise if he put that man into the witness box to confess before the world that he was a wicked and abandoned criminal, and had been associated with another criminal as bad as himself. His right hon. friend could only obtain information from those policemen under the promise that they would not suffer for it, and that meant a great deal more than that they should not be dismissed from the police force. It must, in common-sense have meant that they would not be exposed to the world. But even if they were put into the witness-box, it was perfectly competent for them to absolutely decline to answer all questions touching the matter. They were not asked to go into the witness-box, because that would be a distinct violation of the pledge given to them.


asked if the right hon. Gentleman would kindly let the Committee know the terms of that pledge.


said he could only quote the words of his right hon friend.


asked if the pledge was that the information would not be used, or that the constables would not suffer.


said he had given the pledge exactly as his right hon. friend gave it. Surely a pledge that men would not suffer by telling what they knew would not be fulfilled by putting them into the witness-box to confess their crime before the world. But for obtaining information under that pledge there would have been no evidence whatever against Sheridan. The hon. Member seemed to suppose that his right hon. friend had other evidence in his possession to convict Sheridan. He had nothing of the kind; and it was only when those policemen told what they knew under the pledge he had mentioned that it was known what had happened. At no time was there any other evidence against Sheridan. He would pass from that question. The hon. Member for North Cork made a number of small points about the Estimates. The amount for Irish law charges, it was alleged, had been increasing year by year, but it should be remembered that since 1889 other charges had been thrown on this Vote. There was £2,000 for the Legal Department of the Board of Works, and also sums for the Agricultural and other Departments. He did not intend to enter into a defence of himself nor into the question as to whether or not he was worth the £,5000 a year he received.

Passing away from these small matters, he came to the question of jury-packing. It had been said that he had confessed to jury-packing. Jury-packing was a charge which was very often made; it had been made against not only the present Administration, but the preceding Administration, and, he believed, every Administration through the century. In one sense the charge was true, and that sense was that in Ireland every Administration had found it to be absolutely necessary to exercise the powers which the laws of this country, in common with those of Ireland, gave to the Crown to remove from the jury-box men who through fear or prejudice were not likely to find an impartial verdict. In that sense he had done it, as his predecessor had done it, and every man must do it.


That is worth £5,000!

*MR. ATKINSON (continuing)

declared that no Government could be so cowardly as to allow the law to be paralysed in order to escape the censures of hon. Members opposite. But if the charge meant that men who were partisans had been put on juries in order to obtain unjust and unrighteous verdicts, then it was a false charge. Hon. Members were constantly saying that these things were not done in England. The law was the same but, as he had said before, the greatest difference between England and Ireland was in hon. Members and their opinions. If things were said in England which were said in Ireland, if jurors were murdered for doing their duty ["Oh, oh!"]—if jurors were made as Mr. Field was, if attempts were made to assassinate jurors as he had seen done in one instance in Ireland, if men were intimidated, canvassed, and abused, in order to prevent them acting right in the jury-box, then it might be necessary to put the same powers into force in England. The conditions were absolutely and entirely different. Not only was terrorism, intimidation, and abuse used in Ireland, but this wide-spread Association, League, or whatever it was called, sought to make a law for itself, and to set itself above the law of the land. The people were told by gentlemen high in position in the Nationalist party that they were not bound to obey the law of the land if it came into contact with the law of the League. [The right hon. Gentleman quoted extracts from speeches of the hon. Members for East Waterford, Cork City, and North Leitrim in support of his Statement.] Was it not absurd to suppose that they should put into the jury-box to administer the law, and to punish men who had broken the law, persons who were taught that they were not to obey the law; who were told to spit upon and to despise it, and that it had no binding force upon their conscience? What were the methods of the League? Boycotting and intimidation. These practices had been advocated from hundreds of platforms. Boycotting and intimidation were right according to the law of the League, and it was ludicrous to suggest that for the purpose of punishing persons who indulged in those practices men should be put into the jury-box who were taught that boycotting and intimidation were not offences against the law of God and were perfectly legitimate weapons of agitation. He heard a great deal of talk about the advisability of having independent judges. Some hon. Gentlemen were shocked at the notion of trial by removable magistrates, although those magistrates were in exactly the same position as any other civil servant of the Crown with regard to dismissal.


He is not.


said the hon. Member was mistaken, as it had recently been held that every civil servant could be dismissed at pleasure. The cry was always made that they wanted a jury. Why? Because it was certain that a jury, either from prejudice or terror, would not discharge their duty. He disliked as much as anybody could do setting aside a juror, but it was an unpleasant necessity in Ireland. Everybody who attempted to administer the law in Ireland was forced, into this position, that he must either exercise the right of getting into the jury-box, men of sufficient independence to act justly, or allow crime to go unpunished. Such had been the experience and invariable practice of every Administration that had come into power in Ireland. That was his defence of jury-packing. There was nothing new in that.


No, but the confession of it is new.


said he had defined what jury packing meant, and he totally denied that the present Administration had ever been guilty of jury-packing in the offensive sense suggested, and he did not think that the argument was advanced by preverting the word. The same charge of jury-packing had been brought against Lord Spencer in 1889, Mr. Bryce in 1893, and Mr. Morley in 1894, and they each and all made the same reply which he made, namely, that the Crown solicitors were, instructed to set aside no man on account, of his religion. "Oh, oh."] The instructions were the same, the men who carried them out were very much the same. How did it come about, that, when all these things were done by the Party opposite, the actions were then replete with all the virtues, while now the same things were denounced a? black and wicked to the last degree?

MR. LEAMY (Kildare, N.)

Did we not always denounce jury-packing?


referred the hon. Member to a division which took place in 1894, when an Amendment to the Address was moved dealing with the subject; the Parnellite Party supported the Amendment, but were left in the lurch by the other branch of the Party, among those voting against the Amendment being the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. Therefore he was really not very much affected by the stage thunder of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was sorry that the hon. Member for South Donegal should have accused the members of the profession to which he belonged of everything that was black and abominable in the conduct of prosecutions committed to their charge. He had declared the prosecutions to be "scramblings for a verdict," and that nothing was too unjust or unfair to resort to.


said that he quoted the speech of Sir Charles Russell in 1888, in which he spoke of "the scrambling for a verdict."


said that the hon. Member did not stop there. He said it was "a hunt for scalps."

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

Lord James said that.


thought the hon. and learned Gentle man was mistaken, but, who-ever said it, it was a most unwarranted, cruel, and shameful accusation. He was obliged to the hon. Member for West Clare for bringing up the case which he had mentioned. He had frequently said that crimes of violence and fraud were very few in Ireland, but the white gloves to which the hon. Member referred might be duo to either of two things—either that crimes were not committed, or that evidence could not be obtained to prosecute the criminals; It by no means followed that because there were no criminals to prosecute there were no criminals in existence. The particular case referred to by the hon. Member was a case of mean and cowardly boycotting, if ever there were one. Some years ago a farmer got into arrear and had to sell his farm—part of it for, £150 and the remainder for £450. Years afterwards the man went to the Laud League and denounced the purchasers as land grabbers, and a letter was written to them demanding the surrender of the farm which they had bought. The judge before whom the case came described that letter as "dreads ful" and as containing "a scarcely veiled, threat."


said that he could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's Statement. It was at variance with the information in his possession, and he could pledge his word that there was no intimidation or conspiracy of any kind.


said he was reading from a report of the trial, in which the letter to the man telling him to give up his farm was described by the judge as "a dreadful letter." He would read the letter to the Committee.


And is that the letter which the right hon. Gentleman describes as "a dreadful letter"?


said he was quoting; the language of the judge. This farmer got that letter from the Secretary of the League, and it meant that if he did not do a certain thing he would be denounced as a land grabber. At all events that was his case. The difficulty in administering the law in this district of Clare was that respectable men resorted to these practices, which he did not hesitate to describe as mean, cowardly, and cruel.


All respectable men are against you in Ireland.


denied that assertion, but the difficulty was that respectable I men would descend to such mean and I cruel crimes, for he did not think there was any crime more mean and cruel; than such a one as this. The hon. Member asked if the Government were going to prevent the Crimes I Act from operating in the County of Clare, on account of the absence of; ordinary crime in that county.


Am I to understand that the Government wish to have, instead of combination among the people, a return to the methods of violence which previously prevailed in Clare? If that is what is wanted, they might perhaps be able to get it.


said he hoped that would not be generally understood or generally acted upon. "He claimed that it was the duty of the Government, irrespective of consequences, to put down crime, whatever form it took, or from whatever source it proceeded. Whatever the nature of the crime, the Government must not condone it.


Why did you not put down Sheridan?


said the Government were obliged to put down crimes of this kind, no matter what the station in life the people who perpetrated them.


asked why the Solicitor-General was allowed to appear as counsel before the Committee upstairs?


replied that the Chief Secretary had already answered that question. His colleague was permitted to practice, and he took up a brief for the Crown in this particular case. The case, however, was adjourned, and it came into conflict with an engagement that the Solicitor-General had at Westminster, but his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary had given the assurance that nothing of the kind would occur again.

(11 45.) MR. LEAMY

said that the right hon. Gentleman had practically admitted that the only way in which they could govern Ireland was to deprive Irishmen of the right of trial by jury. The Attorney-General had said that he did not desire to have jury-packing. Of course, he did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman ordered jurors to stand aside because the real jury, packer was always on the spot in the shape of the Crown Solicitor. He had seen the Crown Solicitor with the jury list in his hand, and, as the names of the jury men were called over, he cried out "stand aside" when those men were called which had been ticked off upon his list. The Crown Solicitor sent persons about the country in order to ascertain the religion of those who were upon the jury list, and also whether they were members of the United Irish League or not. The right hon. Gentleman opposite thought it was an excellent reason for refusing to allow a man to sit on the jury if he happened to be a member of the United Irish League, although if it were a case between the landlord and tenant the Crown did not object to members of the landlord party sitting on the jury. He believed that at the Bar the right hon. Gentleman had the reputation of being a fair-minded man, and he had much sympathy with the Attorney-General who was only the victim of an odious system. The right hon. Gentleman had now admitted that he could not administer the law without resorting to jury-packing. The real reason for this was that the law came to Ireland in a foreign garb. In somecases as many as sixty or seventy jurymenhad to be thrust aside before they could get a jury, and that was a state of things which could not be found in any other country in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that ordinary crime hardly existed in Ireland, and that the only crime to be found there was of a political agrarian character.

He wished to know why Sheridan had not been prosecuted. He was astonished that such an explanation as that which had been given to the Committee could have been given in the presence of any lawyer in this House. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that a pledge was given to those men in Sheridan's case that if they gave evidence against Sheridan no harm would come to them. Already the names of those two men had been given, and they had been published in every newspaper in Ireland. Therefore, he was at a loss to know what harm could come to them if they came forward as witnesses against Sheridan in a court of law. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that this course would be a breach of the pledge given to these two men, but it was not an uncommon thing in Ireland to see men brought forward who gave evidence as informers, and who received a promise from the Crown that if they gave evidence they would not only be indemnified but would also get a sum of money for their information. If the Attorney-General wanted to convict an unfortunate peasant of "moonlighting," he did not hesitate at all to put forward his informers, but when an official was concerned he refused to take this course, and Sheridan was allowed to go perfectly free. A greater outrage upon justice had never been committed, and this case showed what they had got to face under the present system of Government in Ireland. He agreed that the Chief Secretary had acted with a good deal of courage in this matter, for lie had acted against the advice of Dublin Castle up to a certain point, but the officials had now proved too strong for him. The Government not only packed juries in older to convict Irish tenants, but they did not hesitate to enter into something like a confederacy with members of the constabulary in order to get up charges. He was very sorry for the Chief Secretary who found himself in such evil company.

*MR. NORMAN (Wolverhampton, S.)

said it was desirable that a protest should be made upon one point of the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland by someone who was not an Irish member. The right hon. Gentleman had been challenged to give the exact words of the pledge, and he understood that he refused to do so. The pledge given was, he believed, that these men, if they spoke the truth, should be

none the worse for it. His contention was that that pledge did not mean that these constables should not be put in the witness-box, but that they should not be put in the dock. What was more common than for the Government to give a pledge of this kind if a person would turn King's evidence. The pledge surely meant precisely that these men should go into the witness-box. The case of Sheridan was so bad that every effort ought to be made to bring him to justice, and these two men ought to have gone into the witness-box in order that justice might prevail in this dreadful case, and then, if necessary for their safety, they should have been provided for in some other country. There was a most deplorable failure of justice, and the right hon. Gentleman's defence of it was one of the feeblest he had ever heard in this House, and it was against this action that he felt bound as an English member to record his protest.

(11.50.) Question put.

The Committee divided.—Ayes, 142; Noes, 80. (Division List No. 283.)

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Dalkeith, Earl of Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Dalrymple, Sir Charles Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Denny, Colonel Keswick, William
Anson, Sir William Reynell Disraeli, Coningaby Ralph King, Sir Henry Seymour
Archdale, Edward Morvyn Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Knowles, Lees
Arkwright, John Stanhope Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Fardell, Sir T. George Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool
Bailey, James (Walworth) Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie
Bain, Colonel James Robert Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (M'nc'r. Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r. Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Long, Rt Hn. Walter,(Bristol, S.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Ger'ld W (Leeds Finch, George H. Lonsdile, John Brownlee
Ban bury, Frederick George Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)
Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Fisher, William Hayes Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose- Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred
Bill, Charles Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon Macdona, John Cumming
Brassey, Albert Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Maclver, David (Liverpool
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Galloway William Johnson Maconochie, A. W.
Brookfield, Colonel Montagu Gordon, Hn. J. E.(Elgin & Nairn M'Calinont, Col. H. L.B (Cambs.
Bull, William James Gore, Hn. GRC. Ormsby-(Salop M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire
Burdett-Coutts, W. Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon Manners, Lord Cecil
Butcher, John George Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry Milvain, Thomas
Cavendish. V. C.W. (D'rbyshire Gretton, John Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor) Greville, Hon. Ronald Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w
Cliamberlain D, J. Austen (W'rc'r Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G.(Midd'x Morrell, George Herbert
Charrington, Spencer Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford
Churchill, Winston Spencer Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert W m. Mount, William Arthur
Clive, Capt. Percy A. Harris, Frederick Leverton Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hay, Hon. Claude George Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Nicholson, William Graham
Compton, Lord Alwyne Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset E. Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse O'Neill, Han. Robert Torrens
Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay Russell, T. W. Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Parker, Sir Gilbert Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Valentia, Viscount
Percy, Earl Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(Sheffield
Plummer, Walter R. Seely, Maj. J. E. B.(Isle of Wight Walker, Col. William Hall
Pretyman, Ernest George Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Wanklyn, James Leslie
Purvis, Robert Smith, Abel H.(Hertfor'd, East) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Randies, John S. Smith, H C (N'rth'mb. Tyneside Wodehonse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Rasch, Major Frederic Carne Spear, John Ward Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Remnant, James Farquharson Stanley, Lord (Lanes.) Wylie, Alexander
Renwick, George Stewart. Sir Mark J. M'Taggart Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George
Ridley. Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. Younger, William
Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G(Oxf'd Univ. Sir William Walrond and
Ropner, Colonel Robert Thornton, Percy M. Mr. Anstruther.
Round, Rt. Hon. James Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.) Healy, Timothy Michael O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N)
Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H. O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W.)
Ambrose, Robert Horniman, Frederick John O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire) O'Kelly, James(Roscomm'n, N.
Boland, John Joyce, Michael O'Malley, William
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Kennedy, Patrick James O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Burke, E. Haviland- Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) Partington, Oswald
Caldwell, James Leamy, Edmund Power. Patrick Joseph
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) Leigh, Sir Joseph Reddy, M.
Channing, Francis Allston Leng, Sir John Redmond, John E. (Waterford
Clancy, John Joseph Lundon, W. Redmond, William (Clare)
Cremer, William Randal MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Delany, William MacNeill, John Gordon Swift Roe, Sir Thomas
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles MacVeagh, Jeremiah Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)
Dillon, John M'Cann, James Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Doogan, P. C. M'Govern, T. Shipman, Dr. John G.
Edwards, Frank M'Kean, John Spencer, Rt Hn C. R.(Northants
Field, William Mooney, John J. Sullivan, Donal
Flynn, James Christopher Moss, Samuel Tennant, Harold, John
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Murphy, John Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r
Goddard, Daniel Ford Nannetti, Joseph P. Thompson, Dr. E C(Mon'gh'n, N
Griffith, Ellis J. Nolan, Col. John P,(Galway, N. Tomkinson, James
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) Tully, Jasper
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil Norman, Henry Young, Samuel
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Harrington, Timothy O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Hayden, John Patrick O'Brien, Kendal(Tipp'r'ryMid. Sir Thomas Esmonde and
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Captain Donelan.

It being after Twelve of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.