§ (9.0.) MR. WILLIAM OBRIEN (Cork) moved the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the conduct of the Government in Ireland in reference to the charges of forgery, manufacture of outrage, and perjury against Sergeant Sullivan of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the danger of his absconding." The hon. Member said he would confine himself as far as possible to a plain statement of the facts of this case, and he would earnestly invite the attention of the House to what had occurred. He was quite aware that a very genuine shock was caused to English feeling by the case of Sergeant Sheridan, and that had made it somewhat difficult, perhaps, for Englishmen to believe that two such cases of atrocity could have occurred at the same time and in the same force. It was easy to understand that Englishmen who did not know Dublin Castle should be impressed by the fact that Sergeant Sheridan was for very special reasons disavowed and dismissed from the force, while it was evident from the half-hearted, and, he was afraid he must say shifty, reply of the Chief Secretary this afternoon that Dublin Castle had not yet made up its mind to throw over Sergeant Sullivan, but had been trying even to this day to hush up the matter and retain him in the police force. It was a task of almost incredible difficulty for a private individual to follow 308 up a matter of this sort in the face of official obstruction, but the matter had now been brought to a stage at which he thought any fair-minded person who gave any attention to the facts would find that this charge had not been made without clear and overwhelming evidence. This was a case in many respects of even more gravity than the case of Sergeant Sheridan, because the outrage that was organised in this case was part of a plot against the honour and reputation of the United Irish League and its leaders, a plot of exactly the same character as that of The Times forgeries, or the Pigott forgeries, against Mr. Parnell, and he thought it would be made only too evident that the right hon. Gentleman's subordinates in Dublin Castle were saddled with the knowledge of this Sergeant Sullivan's guilt by their own expert in handwriting, and that nevertheless they deliberately, as he would show, packed a jury in Sligo to acquit that man while they were posing as his nominal prosecutors, and paid enormous sums out of the public funds in order to recoup that man for the expense that had been incurred in defending him and shielding him from public justice. More than that, the special urgency of this Motion was this. He was afraid there was only too much reason to apprehend that Sergeant Sullivan might be allowed to flee the country as Sergeant Sheridan, unless the Government were promptly brought to book and made answerable for his appearance.
§ He would explain in a moment the methods by which they had been up to the present, and he was sorry to say this very day, baffled in attempting to bring this man to justice. A wholly new situation bad been now created by the providential disclosure that occurred quite unexpectedly during the recent prosecutions under the Coercion Act in Dublin. The Government called an expert in handwriting, an official of the Local Government Board, named Thomas Patrick Nolan, and in the course of his cross-examination there came out some 309 extraordinary admissions which ought to be read to the House. The witness, under cross-examination by Mr. M'Swinney, said he was not examined on the occasion of the trial of Sullivan at Sligo, and that he thought it necessary to explain that the jury acquitted Sergeant Sullivan without going into the defence, and the suggestion he made to the magistrate was that he was not examined at Sligo simply because there was already an overwhelming case as to the innocence of Sullivan. He was asked "Were you examined?" and he replied "No, there were other ways of availing oneself of my services." Yes, there are ways of propping up perjuries by the suggestio falsi which this man did not dare go into the box and pledge himself to. The witness was then pressed as to the conclusion at which he had arrived on the question of handwriting, and eventually he said it was a very awkward question. He thought the House would agree that it was. He was ordered to say whether three or four other experts, including Mr. Gurrin, the Treasury expert, did not differ from his opinion, and he replied they did not, whereupon there was sensation in court. The hon. Member (Mr O'BRIEN) said he was present the whole time in court, and that man did not dare—in spite of the quibble to which the House had been treated at the Table this day—to deny that it was Sergeant Sullivan's handwriting. The House would see that there was a shocking confession by the Government's own expert in handwriting, that he was all along fully convinced of Sergeant Sullivan's guilt, and the attempt that had been made, as far as he could understand by the Chief Secretary in his reply today, to say that Mr. Nolan's swearing that he did not differ from Mr. Gurrin was an evasion. It was an evasion not quite worthy of a great-grandson of Lord Edward Fitzgerald, but it was quite worthy of Dublin Castle. What Mr. Gurrin, the most eminent expert in this kingdom, swore, was that he was so certain that this forged letter was in the handwriting of Sergeant Sullivan that he could scarcely be more certain if he actually saw him write it, and if Mr. Nolan swore he did not differ from Mr. Gurrin, what in Heaven's name is the meaning of this 310 contemptible hair-splitting about words when it is as plain as daylight. He did agree with Mr. Gurrin as to Sullivan's guilt, and the confession was wrung out of him like drops of blood under the threats of the examining magistrate, and only after he had protested piteously did he answer the awkward question. It would be observed that before that admission was got out of him, this expert, Mr. Nolan, swore that although he agreed with Mr. Gurrin that this man was the writer of that forged letter, he was, nevertheless, employed at the Sligo trial, and at the Dublin trial, in order to discredit Mr. Gurrin's evidence, which he heartily believed in himself, and in order to brazen out Sergeant Sullivan's perjured story as to his innocence. What was worst of all, it was now perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman's subordinates in Dublin Castle were at this time aware from their own expert that he believed Sergeant Sullivan to be guilty, and, notwithstanding that, the Crown had actually paid this man's fee for bolstering up that lie, and paid the enormous expenses of Sullivan's perjured evidence, and both the perjured policeman and the dishonest expert were to this day retained in the service of the Crown, and sheltered and defended this evening.
§ He would ask the House's indulgence while he briefly recalled how this transaction arose. It occurred at the time when the United Irish League was just beginning to establish itself strongly in Mayo. At the very outset of this League, which beyond a doubt had succeeded and had been the means of banishing completely and for ever crime from the armoury of agitation in Ireland—this affair was part of a concerted scheme, a diabolical scheme to crush the League by involving it and its leaders in the guilt of a most frightful crime. Some young men were summoned at Westfort for some trivial offence. [Mr. O'Brien was here subjected to some Ministerial interruption, and turning to the Speaker said: I must really appeal against this rude and asinine interruption.] He continued: The local Crown solicitor did a thing which no English prosecutor would ever have dreamt of doing. He went outside the case before the court, and delivered a violent harangue against the leaders of 311 the United Irish League, who were not before the court at all, and threatened in the coarsest language that we should get something that would surprise us. The result of that harangue was that the policemen who were listening to him rushed from the court, and delivered a savage baton charge upon a lot of de-fenceless people, and in a few days afterwards a large force of extra policemen, under two resident magistrates, was quartered upon the district, at the expense of £1,900 a year to the ratepayers of the district, which neither then nor since has been marked with a single serious crime. This standing army of idlers were simply swarming all over the district. There had to be some justification invented for their presence. The League had, by hook or by crook, to be dragged into some responsibility, and then this Sergeant Sullivan of Mulranny, who was on the list for promotion, thought his time had come. Shortly afterwards an admittedly forged letter was sent to a young country fellow—a powerfully-built, reckless young fellow, who was supposed to be just the material for the thing, and money was enclosed. It purported to come from Mr. John M'Thale, the President of the Westmill United Irish League. The letter instructed this young man, James Kelly, and a party of young men with blackened; faces, to go to a house that was named, the house of an unpopular person in the neighbourhood, on a night that was named and commit an outrage. The writer, of course, took it for granted that this young man was acquainted with Mr. M'Thale, who lived only a few miles away, and that he was just the stamp of adventuring young fellow who might easily enough have obeyed instructions. If he had done so, the result would have been a most horrible tragedy, for it turned out afterwards to be the fact that, upon the very night named in the letter, that at the very house named, Sergeant Sullivan of Mulranny, with an armed police patrol, was lying for three hours in ambush behind a fence waiting for his victims. Not only one police patrol, but by some extraordinary coincidence there happened to be concentrated that very night at that very spot a doubly-armed police patrol, and if this young man had 312 turned out he would have been entrapped into a most frightful crime, and the rafters of this House would have rung for many a night with the guilt and with the complicity of myself and every leader of the Irish Party. As it happened, this young man Kelly was not acquainted with Mr. M'Hale, and had never opened his lips to him in his life. He was amazed at getting this letter, and instead of falling into the trap he handed it over to his friends, and the result was that an odious plot was baulked. Sergeant Sullivan and his two police patrols were lying in ambush in vain that night, and the most frightful wrong that ever was done to a political association was averted. Fortunately for the accused, Sullivan had a great many peculiarities about his writing, and the moment that the forged letter and some admitted specimens of his handwriting were submitted to the Treasury expert in London, he came to the conclusion that they were in the same handwriting. This gentleman, who was the confidential adviser of the Treasury and the Post Office in all the most weighty of their affairs, staked his reputation on the statement that he could not have been a bit more sure that the letter was written by Sergeant Sullivan if he had actually seen him write it.
§ Then came the difficulty of bringing this man to justice in the face of such a combination as that of the policeman's superior officers, Dublin Castle, and the magistrates. For a long time it seemed absolutely hopeless to try to get at him. They first applied to the local magistrates to report informations against him, but the local; magistrates, being the local landlords and the sworn enemies of the League, instantly and ostentatiously took his side, and not I only refused the informations, but Lord Sligo, the magistrate who presided, actually got hold of the forged letter and refused to give it up. It was only when their counsel, The Macdermott, a former Attorney General, threatened him with instant proceedings in the Court of King's Bench that the letter was given up, and, but for that, their last chance would have been destroyed of bringing this miscreant to justice. On the hearing of the case before the magistrate, the police patrol book was produced. It purported to show that Sergeant Sullivan and his police patrol had been lying in ambush from 10 to 11 p.m. on that night. One of the policemen in the Mulranny Barracks named 313 Curtain, who up to that time had not in any way, directly or indirectly, interfered in the case, saw this statement reported in next day's papers. He had seen the police patrol book only a few days before, and he was amazed at the statement, for he remembered that what he saw in the police patrol book was, that they lay in ambush from 10 p.m. to 1 a.m. He went again to the police patrol book, and found that a most vital alteration had been made during the few days which had elapsed since he formerly saw it—that was to say, since the prosecution was instituted. The alteration made it appear that the ambush had lasted from 10 to 11 p.m., instead of, as it originally stood, from 10 p.m. to 1 a.m. With a courage that did him honour, Constable Curtain, feeling that a shameful attempt had been made to mutilate the police record, and in view of the most frightful charge, reported the matter to his superior officer, District Inspector Oulton. The officer treated him with the utmost rudeness and brutality. He told this poor constable to mind his own business. When the policeman went back that night to his barrack at Mulranny, he was told by Sergeant Sullivan, the incriminated man, that he was to be removed to the desolate island of Inishkea, twelve miles from the mainland. This was the spirit that created Sergeant Sullivans.
§ What happened after this? This Constable Curtain was punished by being sent to that wild island, boycotted, and eventually tortured out of the force, for they did not dare to dismiss him, there not being a black mark against him. He thought it his duty to communicate to the prosecution this vital alteration which had been made in the police book. The consequence was that they were able to send up an indictment to the Grand Jury. In the face of this evidence even the Grand Jury of landlords of County Mayo were obliged to return Sullivan for trial. One would suppose that at this day, at all events, the Castle officials would restrain their partisanship towards a man committed for trial for this appalling crime, and as to whom everybody, of course, knew that he could only be brought to justice by fairness and determination on the part of police officers. They might have been expected to steer an even keel, at all events, and to make the truth known 314 whatever the consequences might be. What happened? The very man who stepped forward and offered himself as bail for Sergeant Sullivan was County Inspector Milling, the principal police officer in the county. The other bail was Sergeant Sullivan's superior officer, District Inspector Oulton, of Newport, who had rebuked and upbraided Curtain for his indiscreet conscientiousness in divulging the mutilation of the police record. Of course Sergeant Sullivan was liberated, and a national defence fund was raised, every police barrack in the country contributing. There was a furious agitation among the police instituted, and it might have cost some of those connected with the prosecution their lives. They showed unbridled ferocity towards them, and it was in an atmosphere of that kind that the Crown took up the prosecution. The Crown was asked, as a gauge of fair play in so desperately important a matter, to employ The Macdermott, who was engaged in the private prosecution, and who was cognisant of the facts. The Crown was represented by Sir Patrick Coll, the father-in-law of Mr. Malachy Kelly, the Crown solicitor. Sir Patrick Coll insolently declined to allow The Macdermott to have any voice in the prosecution. Sir Patrick Coll instructed his own son-in-law to work up the evidence for the prosecution, and that man spent the greater part of his time in the police barrack with Sergeant Sullivan and his brother policemen. Every witness for the prosecution—he had it from the lips of Mr. Gurrin himself—was treated with a rudeness that left no possible doubt as to what they were to expect at the trial. Sullivan was tried at Sligo Winter Assizes, at which also poor M'Goohan, of whom the House had heard so much, became the innocent victim of Sheridan. In that case there was a miscarriage of justice which the Chief Secretary was now one of the loudest and most penitent to avow and proclaim. The House would remember that in the case of this poor creature the jury was carefully packed to convict. Every Catholic and every Nationalist was ordered to stand aside. Of course the jury packing in that case had its effect. That was one portion of the jury packing operations of the Crown at these assizes. But there was another portion. Having convicted 315 an innocent man, they passed on to acquit a guilty policeman. In the case of Sullivan the jury packing was carefully manipulated by Mr. Malachy Kelly, who was nominally the Crown prosecutor, but who was the prime mover in this. They had the disgusting spectacle of a wholly Protestant, wholly Unionist, and largely Orange jury, sworn in this venue where nine-tenths of the inhabitants were Roman Catholic. The hon. Member was present at the trial at Sligo, and certainly, since the part that "Honest Iago" took in the duel between Othello and Cassio, there never was witnessed a more dishonest or a more revolting performance. The Crown Counsel addressed the jury with their tongues in their cheeks, plainly apologising for the necessity of submitting the case. The Nationalist witnesses Were badgered as if they were dogs, with the connivance of the Crown Prosecutor, and, to crown all, the partisanship of this Orange jury was so naked, so ostentatious, that they actually announced their verdict before the evidence of one of the most important witnesses—Police Constable Curtain—had been heard. Mr. Justice Gibson rebuked the jury for this, and ordered them to retire; but subsequently the jury returned with the verdict as had been already stated. This jury, without even calling for witnesses for the defence, insisted upon acquitting Sergeant Sullivan, although they knew now that if the witnesses for the defence had been produced, the first and principal witness, Nolan, expert in handwriting, and official of the Local Government Board, would have been obliged to avow that he agreed with Gurrin that Sergeant Sullivan was the writer of the letter. When the foreman of the jury stated that they had unanimously made up their minds before hearing Constable Curtain, Justice Gibson said he had never heard of such a case. No human being ever before heard of such a thing happening in a civilised community. After Sullivan was acquitted, these men went about Sligo drunk, and insulting all the prosecution witnesses. Some of his friends in Sligo, who were not very nervous people, thought it necessary to accompany him in the train that night, just as the stalwart Minister of Agriculture sidled up to the First Lord of the Treasury the other night when an Irish Member approached him. That was a specimen of the spirit 316 which had been created by Dublin Castle, and of the spirit in which this disgusting bogus prosecution was conducted.
§ He had forgotten to mention one circumstance as to the perfect network of obstruction caused by all sorts of officials. The Sligo trial had put an end to any chance of bringing this man to trial for a criminal offence. To be quite candid, the expense of all those proceedings was so heavy as to be almost too crushing for him to bear; but the thing was so atrocious, and it seemed so intolerable to let the truth be smothered in that foul way, that a civil action for libel was brought in Dublin. Of course in a civil action in Dublin there could be no hope of packing the jury. On the other hand, the special jurors in the County of Dublin were chiefly Unionists and Protestants, and there could be no hocussing such a jury by the evidence given in the bogus trial in Sligo. The jury heard the case, and the more the facts were sifted the more they were convinced of the truth of the case for the United League. The result was that eleven out of the twelve jurors were firmly convinced of this man's guilt. It was a matter of public notoriety that the universal opinion in the Four Courts, which was not particularly favourable to the Nationalist cause, was that they had proved their case up to the hilt, in spite of the wanton obstruction. When the trial was about to come on in Dublin he received a telegram from his solicitor, stating that for the convenience of counsel, it was intended to apply on the following day for the postponement of the action to the next sitting, unless he wired to the solicitor to the contrary. He instantly telegraphed that on no account was the action to be delayed for a single hour. That telegram was handed in to the telegraph office at Westport, and received by a clerk named Robinson, a friend of Sullivan's, with whom he had been seen drinking the previous night. That telegram was never delivered in Dublin; it was burked, and suppressed. Fortunately, feeling so strongly as he did that any delay would be fatal, in addition to telegraphing he wrote to his solicitor. The suppression of that telegram was brought before the House by his hon. friend, and the only sort of excuse given by the Postmaster General for the disappearance of this vital telegram was that 317 it had failed in transmission on the wires between Westport and Dublin ‡ Did any one ever hear of such an excuse? He had the best proof what a lie it was, for that very day he had sent other telegrams along these failing wires from West port to Dublin, and every one of them arrived safely. Of course they understood that the failure of transmission on the wires was the desperate invention of an official who desired to shield this man. Again and again they had asked for a public and open investigation into this most dreadful scandal as to the abuse of the telegraph wires, but it was all of no use. Many months afterwards the telegraph clerk Robinson was dismissed from the service on some other pretext, but it had never been admitted that the wires had been rigged in order to shield Sullivan. That was only one of hundreds of specimens of what they had had to go through in this case. There was a regular conspiracy, a sort of freemasonry among the officials in Ireland to make discovery in such a case as this impossible. He did not think it would be denied by the Crown that thousands of pounds of public money had been spent in the defence of this man, both at the bogus trial in Sligo and at the trial at Dublin. It turned out to be a fact that when the Government paid these vast sums for the defence of this man they must have been aware that their own expert in handwriting believed in his heart that Sullivan was guilty, and that he had been forced to the same conclusion as Mr. Gurrin. The evidence of Mr. Nolan proved that while he himself agreed with Mr. Gurrin that this man was a forger, he was employed for the purpose of defeating' justice and discrediting Mr. Gurrin's evidence. He knew of no story in the administration of justice more horrible. This perjured policeman and this expert witness were now in the service of the Government, and were honoured, and more or less defended by the Attorney General. In some respects this was, to his thinking, an even more serious case than that of Sergeant Sheridan, because the Chief Secretary had said that when he was convinced of Sheridan's guilt he was dismissed. Undoubtedly, if the Chief Secretary had not done so, the Irish Members would have worn away their lives before they could have convinced the House of Sheridan's guilt. And this was the Government of 318 a country which was so horrified at the miscarriage of justice in the Dreyfus case!
§ He wanted to know now what the Government were going to do besides shivering at that table. (A laugh.) The laugh was not impressive, but the shivering was impressive. Were the Government going to dismiss this man Sullivan from the force? What were they going to do with the police accomplices. It was stated that, owing to the malfeasance of the Crown, Sullivan could not be prosecuted for forgery, but he could be prosecuted for perjury, and it was known that in twenty-four hours they could make the proof of this man's guilt overwhelming. The real danger at this moment was that when this man read in Ireland the discussion in the House of Commons it was not at all impossible that he might follow Sergeant Sheridan to America, because he knew that they were not going to allow this matter to die. It. was so atrocious that at any hazard and at any cost they would not allow this crime to go unexposcd. It had been said in the House that they vilified the Royal Irish Constabulary, who were their own countrymen. They had never done anything of the kind. In his own experience nine out of every ten constables were honest and respectable young Irishmen, who were most reluctantly driven by poverty and the absence of a career in their own country to take service against their own countrymen. But, while nine out of every ten were decent and respectable men, the tenth was a thorough ruffian; and it was always the ruffian who was picked out, honoured, and given promotion. The greater the scandal, the more rapid the promotion, and a shield would be thrown over their misdeeds by Dublin Castle. Sheridan was foolish enough to fall out with his superior officer, when he was thrown overboard without mercy. Sergeant Sullivan was championed by his district inspectors, and Dublin Castle held on to him. This was not a twopenny-halfpenny legal question, but a question deeply affecting the whole of Ireland, and he asked the Chief Secretary what he was going to do. Was he going to dismiss Sullivan, or send him out of the country, or give him a compassionate allowance? They would drag the truth of this case out no matter what were the obstacles, or who might have to suffer.
319MR. CONORO'KELLY (Mayo, N.)said he wished to congratulate the hon. Member for Cork on his masterly address, and he hoped that the Motion, which he was proud to second, would be carried. He knew Mr. M'Hale perfectly well, and he was thoroughly satisfied that that young man would rather see his right hand wither from his body than have written that letter. It was quite obvious, where crime was rare, and the people peaceable, and where promotion in the police force was very slow indeed, the temptations to create crimes as a means of securing promotion were very great. If the letter had been delivered to Kelly, to whom it was addressed, possibly that young man would have been shot in cold blood, or he would have been arrested and returned for trial by a packed jury, and it would not have been the fault of Sullivan if evidence had not been forthcoming to convict him. Moveover, the district would have been branded with a suspicion of crime, and the inevitable sequel would have been that Sullivan would have been hailed as an efficient officer who had been successful in the suppression of crime. The Chief Secretary had said that the evidence on which Sergeant Sheridan was dismissed could not have possibly secured a conviction, but the case against Sergeant Sullivan was far stronger, especially as his own expert witness believed in his guilt, and also because of the fact that ten out of twelve Dublin jurors were convinced that he was guilty. Recent developments made it plainer than ever that Sullivan did write the letter, and instead of wearing the uniform of a police officer he should be wearing the garb of a convict. For the last four years he had been Chairman of the County Council of his own county, and one of the districts in which extra police were quartered was the very district in which Sullivan was stationed. Representations were made by Sullivan and his officers to Dublin Castle that that district needed the protection of extra police, and the people were penalised by having to pay for them. No case from the district was ever sent to the assizes; it was a perfectly peaceable district, but, notwithstanding that, the County Council during the first two years of its existence received communications from the Inspector general of the Royal Irish Constabulary, calling 320 on it to pay £1,900 a year for extra police to be levied off one of the most poverty-stricken districts in the West of Ireland, and at the same time one of the most peaceful districts. The County Council asked for an inquiry. It pointed out that the district was peaceful, but Dublin Castle turned a deaf ear to its representations. The statistics of the Government showed that there was no crime in the district, yet it was mulcted for the maintenance of an extra police force; and it was only when the County Council threatened to throw on the Government the task of conducting the affairs of the county, and to allow the whole structure of Local Government to tumble to the ground, that the extra force was absorbed into the general force, the district being no longer responsible for its maintenance. So long as it was the policy of the Government to allow men like Sergeant Sullivan to defeat it, how could the Irish people be blamed if they were confirmed in their worst suspicions of the doings of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr William, O'Brien.)
§ (10.23.) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)said, as nine-tenths or nineteen- twentieths of the speech of the hon. Member for Cork was concerned with matters which took place before his right hon. friend assumed his present position, and were concerned with criminal prosecutions for which he was entirely responsible, it was becoming that he should put the House in possession of the facts, which from the be ginning to the end of the hon. Member's oration had been strangely misrepresented. He would not say deliberately misrepresented, because he believed the hon. Member was so possessed of the notion of the iniquity of Sergeant Sullivan——
§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENSo is your own expert.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid Mr. O'Brien was so persuaded of the iniquity of every Crown official in Ireland that that must account for his distorted view, and for the way in which he had pursued Sullivan with 321 the most implacable hate, and by methods which, as far at all events as he conceived, were inconsistent with the very rudiments of justice. There was scarcely an hon. Member in the House who would believe that the hon. Member had prosecuted this man and that he had been acquitted. He had sued him civilly in a venue he had himself selected. The action was pending at the present moment. Unless he was greatly mistaken, it still remained on the file.
§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENThe action is not pending.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid it was on the file of the Court at the present hour, and yet the hon. Member thought it consistent with fair play, with what was just and right, and even decent, to avail himself of his position in the House to vilify the man he failed to convict either before a civil or a criminal Court. The hon. Member said something about the venue in the Court of Dublin. That was his own venue; he selected it himself, and if he were not satisfied with it why did he not ask the Court to change? If the hon. Member thought that the disclosure that has been recently made of the evidence of this man Nolan was sufficient to bring home conviction to any man of the truth and justice of the case he made against this man Sullivan, why did he not go on with the civil action? No, he was too cowardly. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENI will ask you, sir, whether or not that is a disorderly remark.
§ * MR. SPEAKERI could have wished the right hon. Gentleman had expressed himself in more moderate language. At the same time, I am bound to say I did not take it as if he had spoken of the hon. Member as a coward, or else I should have interrupted him. I thought he was speaking rather of the policy and tone of the speech of the hon. Member, which he has a right to characterise.
§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENI fling back the word "coward."
§ * MR. SPEAKERI understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he would withdraw that expression.
§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENHe did not. Let him say it now.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid he would withdraw the word "cowardly," as he had already done; but he would say the hon. Member adopted a course which, at all events, he thought was an unfair course. If, as he contended tonight, he had obtained evidence which must convict this man Sullivan of this charge, why did he not have it further investigated in the Civil Court? It would have been not only fair, but just and right to bring his action to test.
§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENSo I will; but it is your duty.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid that at all events that was the way the matter stood. A criminal action had been tried, and this man has been acquitted. A civil action had been tried for practically the same thing as in the criminal trial. He was accused of promoting outrage by means of a letter. A civil action was brought for libel on that same letter, and the real question in the controversy in both trials was whether he was the writer of the letter or not. But the hon. Member, instead of proceeding with the civil action, preferred to assail this man in this way before this House. What was it the hon. Gentleman asked? He asked that my right hon. friend should try the case again. Could it be demanded in this House that a man who had been once tried before the tribunals of the land and acquitted should be tried again for the same offence? There was no power to try him again. It would be monstrous to try him again for the same offence, even if the verdict given against him was as unsatisfactory as any man who fairly approached the consideration of the case must hold it to be satisfactory. He would not attempt on this occasion to go through that case again, for the House of Commons was the most unsuitable assembly to decide what was the just and fair conclusion from the evidence of a great many witnesses, and a long and complicated cross-examination. He bad read the case many times, and read the evidence before the prosecution was instituted: he had read the report of the trial, and he said no man could read that 323 without coming to the conclusion that there was a fair case one way or the other, even on the evidence of the Crown, for a jury to say that this man was guilty or that he was not; either the letter was a concoction or it was not; either he had written it, or somebody else had forged it, and made the charge against him. The jury chose one alternative, and now, because that conclusion was disagreeable to the hon. Member, he assailed the verdict. That was a most iniquitous thing. He would not stop to refer more to the first prosecution were it not that the hon. Member had chosen to make some reflections upon the different persons who were engaged in it. He has made, first of all, a statement that there was what he called jury-packing. The facts were that there were nine jurors set aside by the Crown, and five were; challenged by the prisoner. He did not know what religion they were. Hon. Members make statements in the House that so and so was a Protestant and so and so a Roman Catholic, but they must be aware at the time they make them there was no possibility of checking them. At all events, if they were Roman; Catholics who were set aside and Protestants who were selected, certainly that was not his fault. He had directed every stage of this prosecution, and he took the precaution of sending a special circular to the Crown Solicitor who had charge of the case, which was to this effect:—
As the action of the Crown in this case is likely to be misrepresented, no matter what it may be, I wish particularly to call your attention to the fact that you should examine the panel most carefully, and consult the Crown Solicitor.
§ [Much interruption from Nationalist Members.]
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order. Hon. Members should abstain from these long and frequent interruptions. The attack was listened to with extreme courtesy and attention, and I do hope hon. Gentlemen; will show the same courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. SWIFT MCNEILL (Donegal, S.)It is the local Crown Solicitor to whom the letter was sent.
§ MR. ATKINSONYes, the local Crown Solicitor.
I desire, moreover, in this and all other cases in which local prejudice may be excited, or juries influenced by fear, you will do your utmost to secure that a fair and impartial jury shall be empanelled. In that endeavour you will act strictly on the lines of the circular to the Crown Solicitors of the 12th February, 1894, and signed by my predecessor in office, a copy of which, no doubt, you have in your office.The Crown Rules provided that no man should be set aside on account of his religious belief. Hon. Members would say, of course, he was not sincere in all that—that that was the usual complimentary strain—that he had his tongue in his cheek all the while he was giving that direction; but if he had, why should the Crown Solicitor, who gets I that instruction, deliberately, and for ‡ no purpose, violate his duty, and sot aside men for such reasons? Those were the instructions given, and he had every reason to believe those instructions were carried out. The gentleman who got those instructions was a Roman Catholic, a gentleman of well-known character and position, one of the most respectable; solicitors in Ireland, and a gentleman whom all classes in Ireland respected. I He sent down to conduct the case the; senior Crown Prosecutor in Ireland, who was a colleague of his, and was now a member of the judicial bench in Ireland, and he wound up his speech by saving his instructions were that no favour of any kind was to be shown to this man. He would cite a passage from his speech—This is not a case for sympathy in a court of justice, and the jury should deal out the same justice to the sergeant as they would to the humblest subject of the community.The hon. Member for Cork said, "All this is a bogus thing," but when it suited him, when he was trying to get the verdict of the jury in Dublin, those who represented him did not say it, because he knew such a thing would be rejected with scorn. Mr. O'Shaughnessy, K.C., was his counsel and, in addressing the jury he said that, no one, in the Court or out of it, would for a moment believe Mr. Geo. Wright who was counsel for the Crown in the criminal case ever did anything unworthy of the profession of which he was such a distinguished member, or of himself. Then as to Mr. Malachy Kelly he said that why the Crown solicitor should have been brought into the ease he could 325 not understand. They had not in the slightest manner reflected on that gentleman, and as far as he (counsel) was concerned it was wholly unnecessary to defend him.
§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid he had great respect for Mr. O'Shaughnessy as a counsel, but he should be as sorry to be bound by Mr. O'Shaughnessy's politics as he was sure Mr. O'Shaughnessy would be to be bound by his.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid that that was not the point at all. The hon. Member had made aspersions on the Crown counsel of the Crown Solicitor who conducted the previous prosecution, but he knew perfectly well that he dare not state them before any independent and honest tribunal, and his counsel in his presence retracted every one of them.
§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid that Mr. O'Shaughnessy was not his counsel. If he identified himself with Mr. M'Hale, because his honour was struck at as well as Mr. M'Hale's, that did not alter the fact that the action was brought by Mr. M'Hale and that he was in no way responsible.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid the hon. Member now stated that he was not concerned in the action. He would quote from the report of the trial to show the position of the hon. Member. Mr. M'Hale, the president of the local branch of the League, was the prosecutor in the criminal trial and the plaintiff in the criminal action. He was asked "Are you the nominal or the real prosecutor in the case? "I am not the nominal but the real prosecutor. I may have said that. "Was it true?" "Well no. It was not exactly true, except that I could not fight." Then he was asked by his lordship what he meant by saying he was not the nominal but the real prosecutor and he replied, "I am the real prosecutor in the case because I am the man whose name was forged, but I had no money myself to go on with it." Then he was asked "who did you look to as your paymaster?" and he 326 replied "Mr. O'Brien." [Here, according to the report, Mr. O'Brien interrupted with, "Yes."]
§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENThere is some mistake there. This is a personal matter, and we ought to have common fair play. I did not open my lips in the whole course of this libel prosecution.
§ MR ATKINSONCriminal prosecution.
§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENNo, not once. It is a misprint; it must be.
§ MR. ATKINSONI am reading from the shorthand-writer's transcript of the evidence. [Nationalist cries of "Where was it published?" and "A police reporter."]
§ MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENI pledge my word I never opened my lips in the Court. [Some Ministerial cries of "Sit down."] I will not sit down, we are fighting in this House against terrific odds. I never opened my lips in the course of that trial, but I have no difficulty whatever in saying now that, rather than see this poor creature crushed under' this frightful imputation for want of money, to the best extent of my means, as well as of the local organization's means, we would have done our best to vindicate justice and our own honour.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid that of course, he accepted the assurance of the hon. Member. The hon. Member would not deny that he financed this man, but why did he not repudiate the disclaimer of his counsel? Why did he not make those statements then, when they could be tested? The jury in the criminal case did not hear the prisoner's defence, and although counsel for the Crown pressed them to reconsider the matter, they said that they were perfectly satisfied that the case was not sustained. Then the civil action went on and the hon. Member said that eleven of the jurors were in his favour. There was no way in which the hon. Member could legally 327 ascertain that. All he knew was that there was a disagreement in the venue selected by the hon. Member himself. Was it right or fair, while the courts were still open to the hon. Member to revive a discussion of events which took place four years ago, and in reference to which a full debate took place more than three years ago? A man named Nolan was apparently employed by Sullivan, for what did not appear clear from the newspaper report of the evidence. He would however assume, if the hon. Member wished it, that he was employed to give evidence as an expert. The executive Government had no control over him, and had nothing to do with him. He was the witness of the accused and was brought down to Sligo, but was not examined because the prisoner's case was not opened. Were the Crown responsible for that? Were the Crown to step in and prevent the accused man from being acquitted? Nolan was also brought to Dublin, but was not examined. He was not responsible, and the executive Government were not responsible for that. Why he was not examined he did not know. Some short time ago Nolan, in answer to a question in Green Street, denied that he delivered any opinion, and the moment he said that the hon. Member for Cork City believed he was brought down to Sligo to commit perjury, though he now admitted that he was willing to swear he did not agree with Mr. Gurrin. The next assumption of the hon. Member was that the Crown knew that the prisoner's expert would confirm the evidence of Mr. Gurrin, and that the Crown brought down this man to swear a falsehood. He could pledge his reputation and his position that, until Nolan was examined in Green Street, he never knew he was employed by Sergeant Sullivan, he never knew what his evidence would be, he knew absolutely nothing about it. It was a monstrous practice, daily resorted to by hon. Members opposite, without one tittle of proof to sustain them, to use their position in the House to bring the most infamous charges against the executive Government. Such charges, made and repeated in that House without proof, were less derogatory to those against whom they were directed 328 than to the men who made them. The employment of The Mac Dermott as counsel for the prosecution he refused because that gentleman had been counsel against the prisoner in the initial private litigation, and for the Attorney General to brief him would have been for the Crown to take sides. The hon. Member for Cork said that while nine-tenths of the constabulary force were honest men, it was the other tenth—the scoundrels—that secured promotion. The House must see how difficult it would be to organise a police force on those lines. The hon. Member apparently believed that when a charge was brought against a policeman he ought to be hunted to-death, and that every man was a low conspirator and a criminal who came forward to obtain for him a fair trial. He would point out that the Crown was-bound to pay the expenses of every prisoner who was brought from his own county for trial at the Winter Assizes, and he presumed the hon. Member thought that because the accused was a policeman that rule should be departed from. What would be thought of him and what charges would be brought against him if, instead of holding himself aloof from both parties, he allied himself with one side? The hon. Member asked what course the Government intended to-take. That was a matter more for his right hon. friend than for him to answer. But he had no objection to tell the hon. Member, upon his experience as a counsel of some standing, what advice he would give his right hon. friend, and that was that it would be a most monstrous outrage on justice to put a man for a second time on his trial for the same offence for which he had been acquitted.
§ (11.7.) MR. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)said' he desired to put one question to the right hon. Gentleman, which would test the bona fides of the speech he had just delivered. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he was responsible for the whole proceedings in this case. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman as a man of honour to say whether he had ever compared the forged letter with the admitted handwriting of sergeant Sullivan.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid he had seen photographs of both documents.
§ MR. HARRINGTONsaid he had compared both, and he had too long an acquaintance with the right hon. Gentleman in his profession to believe for a moment that lie would pledge his word that the forged letter was not in Sullivan's handwriting. That was a sufficient answer to all that the right hon. Gentleman had said. Why should it be left in Ireland to a private citizen to vindicate the law? And if Sergeant Sullivan failed before the Dublin jury to get himself acquitted on a charge of forgery, was he to be retained in His Majesty's service? The right hon. Gentleman dwelt with great force on the fact that the venue chosen by Mr. M'Hale and his counsel was the venue of the court of Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman knew that eleven out of the twelve jurors were in favour of a verdict against Sullivan, and that one juror succeeded in defeating the ends of justice; and yet the right hon. Gentleman rode off in triumph on that, just as if Sullivan had been acquitted. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt on the fact that his hon. friend the Member for Cork had supplied funds in the case. That was after the Crown had been appealed to to take up the case, and after it had been given every facility. It was the duty of the Crown to have the law respected and vindicated, yet it blocked every step in the case.
§ MR. ATKINSONsaid that the Grown Solicitor was advised within five hours of the time the prosecution was instituted.
§ MR. HARRINGTONsaid he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that prosecutions by a private individual were almost unknown in Ireland. The whole machinery of the law was set in motion by the Government, and it was recognised as their duty to investigate the circumstances and to institute a prosecution. This case was bruited about for months; every policeman knew that the charge was about to be laid; Sullivan's officers knew it; and instead of instituting a prosecution, they used every means in their power to get up a defence for Sullivan. The Chief Secretary went so far as to justify two of his inspectors in giving bail for this man, and asked whether they were to assume that a man was 330 guilty because a charge was alleged against him. No, but not a single case could be cited, among all the innocent people who had been put on trial, in which the county or district inspector went security for the accused. Among a people so sensitive to injustice as the Irish all the logic of the Attorney General would never move the impression that the whole force of Dublin Castle was behind this man. Why was the person of Sullivan more sacred than that of any other person put upon his trial? He himself was not professionally engaged in this case, but he was in the district at the time defending other prisoners, and under his cross-examination of policemen they admitted, in the presence of their superiors, that a collection was made in the barracks and contributed to the officers for the defence of this man. The mere fact of the false entry in the patrol book was evidence to them that, whether the man was guilty or not, an endeavour was being made to make up a false case for the defence. The Attorney General, although responsible for vindicating the law in Ireland, had never; troubled to compare the alleged forged document with the admitted handwriting of Sullivan. Would the Chief Secretary mend the hand of the Attorney-General? The expert employed for the defence had now confessed in open court that he agreed with the other experts that the two handwritings were the same. Surely the fact must force itself upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. Here was a man guilty of deliberate incitement to crime and outrage still being maintained by the Government. It was a case the Government was bound to probe to the bottom, and he had sufficient confidence in the Chief Secretary to say that if he took the matter up he would come to the same conclusion that he had.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool Scotland)said he had paused, hoping the Chief Secretary would rise, and he was quite prepared to give way if the right hon. Gentleman wished to speak.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover)If the hon. Member has any fresh arguments to urge or fresh charges 331 to make, it is better that he should speak first; otherwise I am ready to go on. (Mr. T. P. O'Connor giving way, the right hon. Gentleman continued:) Having been directly challenged by the hon. Member for the Harbour Division, and way having been made for me, I rise, although, after listening to the lucid and exhaustive speech of the Attorney-General for Ireland, I am rather in doubt as to the necessity, because a more destructive piece of criticism I have seldom listened to. Nothing of the charge preferred remains, but evidently some hon. Members think something does remain, because the question pointedly put to me is whether I have seen the letter alleged to be forged, and, if not, whether I will compare it with specimens of Sergeant Sullivan's handwriting, and if I think there is similarity between the alleged forged document and authentic pieces of the officer's handwriting, will I do—what? Order a man who has been tried and acquitted, apparently, to be tried again, or if it is impossible, will I act as if the man had been tried and condemned? That is the "definite matter of urgent public importance" we have brought before us. It is definite: it has turned solely upon a charge preferred more than four years ago against a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary. It would have been important if the question had not already been decided, for such an allegation against a public official is always a matter of the gravest importance until the question has been decided one way or the other. Its urgency can only be argued if a new fact has occurred which causes men of ordinary intelligence to hold that the question has not been decided. This matter has been going on for a very long time. With the exception of the alleged new fact, every single argument, every fact, every allegation, every imputation has been trotted out again, again, and again. Just as we are today debating the case four years after it has been decided, so originally the House was asked to debate it while it was pending. The first debate on the case in this House was on 9th August, 1898, after a true bill had been preferred against Sullivan, and when he was awaiting his trial, which did not take place until December 1890.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that what really occurred on that occasion, was that the Member for East Mayo asked the Chief Secretary not to allow Sullivan to go on with constabulary duty pending his trial.
§ MR. WYNDHAMI am glad the hon. Member has reminded me that the hon. Member for East Mayo took part in that debate, because I also read the debate this afternoon, and I was struck by one sentence in the speech of the hon. Member. What the hon. Member for East Mayo said was, "If he is tried and acquitted, then I presume he will return to duty." The presumption was verified. Sullivan was tried and acquitted in 1898, and he returned to duty. Having been tried in December, 1898, a civil action was brought against him in 1899, and this matter was debated in another place in June, 1899, and in the House of Commons on 22nd June, 1899. There have been two trials, two debates in this House, and one debate in another place, and now we are asked to debate it again because a new fact has come to light. What is that new fact? The hon. Member for Cork has read a long extract from the report given by the Freeman's Journal of a cross-examination in a recent trial which had nothing to do with Sullivan. I will not go into the evidence which was given under the stress of that cross-examination, because I am perfectly prepared, for the sake of my argument, and for the sake of my argument only, to take the most extreme construction which the hon. Member himself has placed upon it, viz., that an expert witness in handwriting stated that he agreed with two other experts who had given evidence in the original trial, which took place more than four years ago. The jury heard these two experts say that the letter was, in their opinion, written by Sergeant Sullivan in a feigned handwriting, but having heard a great deal of other evidence for the prosecution, and, above all, the cross- examination of the witnesses by Mr. Seymour Bush, acquitted the prisoner without troubling to retire from the box. I will not speculate as to the exact nature of the impression created in the minds of the jury by Mr. Seymour Bush, who dwelt 333 upon the fact that people had been anxious to secure specimens of Sergeant Sullivan's handwriting before the alleged forged letter was sent. That may or may not, in the minds of the jury, have seemed to have some bearing on the matter. Again, Mr. Seymour Bush, in his able cross-examination, elicited the fact that, whereas the two handwriting experts, Mr. Gurrin and Mr. Price, stated that in their opinion the alleged forged letter was written by Sullivan, but in a feigned hand, all the other witnesses said it was written in Sullivan's ordinary handwriting. That discrepancy may have had some effect on the minds of the jury. But why speculate? The jury acquitted the man, and now we are asked to believe that if a third expert in handwriting—and admittedly an expert of not such high standing as Mr. Gurrin—had been produced the jury would have come to an opposite conclusion. I decline to indulge in these hypothetical speculations, and I certainly decline to act as if a man who has been found innocent by his peers had indeed been found guilty because I am told that a third expert in handwriting would have given evidence of the same character as was tendered by the two other experts and disregarded by the jury.
§ (11.30.) MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he had hoped that the Chief Secretary, having to his honour helped to expose Sergeant Sheridan, would have hesitated to protect Sergeant Sullivan. What was the position of the Government? Many as had been the heartbreaking Irish debates to which he had listened during the last twenty-two years, none had more filled him with despair than the one just concluding. Sergeant Sheridan admittedly had by perjury sent three innocent men to gaol, but, without any attempt being made to bring him to justice, he had been allowed to escape to America, two of his confederates had received compassionate allowances, and another was still allowed to wear the uniform of the monarch of the country. Now there was the case of Sergeant Sullivan, who, according to the testimony of the highest experts, was guilty of incitement to crime by means of 334 forgery, and yet was retained in the service of the Crown. But, said the right hon. Gentleman, Sullivan had been acquitted. It was a remarkable and sinister coincidence that this man was acquitted at the very same assizes at which M'Goohan, the innocent victim of Sheridan, was convicted. At the same assizes, before the same judge, and by the same kind of jury, Sullivan, the forger, the inciter to crime, was, and with the connivance of the Crown—for he charged them with it—acquitted. The Attorney General was almost indignant because attention had been called to this matter, and asked why the hon. Member did not go on with his case. Had the right hon. Gentleman no duty to the police force under his control? Where there was a prima facie case was it a matter for a private individual to take up? Where was the Government? The right hon. Gentleman himself was head of the police, and he should take care of their honour; and yet he made it a reproach that my hon. friend out of his own pocket paid the expenses of this man having his case brought to justice. The Attorney General had had the face to say that he did not know the character and composition of the jury. He thought it was about time he went over to Ireland, for he evidently wanted a little native air. The right hon. Gentleman had almost become an Irish Cockney like himself. As a matter of fact, he believed there were thirteen people told to stand aside.
§ MR. ATKINSONNo, there were nine.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid there were nine asked to stand aside by the Crown and five by the prisoner. The Crown and the prisoner, however, were quite the same person. He wished to ask was there a single one of the fourteen persons asked to stand aside a Protestant or a Unionist? Since the days of George IV, there never had been such a professionally ignorant person as the right hon. Gentleman. Every one of those who were asked to stand aside was a Nationalist. By the joint action of the bogus prosecutor and of the prisoner, 335 there was a fine, true blue Protestant and Unionist jury empanelled which was as ready to acquit the friend of the Government as to convict a political prisoner. How like this was the Drey fus case. The jury which tried Sullivan was packed, and they wanted to stop the case in the middle of it before they had heard the chief evidence.
§ MR. ATKINSONNo, no. They never indicated any opinion of that sort until afterwards, when they stated that they had come to the same conclusion that morning.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORYes, they had come to that conclusion in the morning, before they had heard the principal witness. It was stated in court that the case was a strong one without the evidence of this witness, but his evidence was a tremendous corroboration. Before the witness, a police constable from the same barracks as Sullivan, gave his evidence, this impartial jury were ready and willing to acquit Sullivan and almost ready to apologise to the prisoner. That Was the impartial trial in Sligo which acquitted this man without a stain upon his character. He for his part thought Sullivan guilty because it required so much jury packing to acquit him. The whole thing reminded him of the man who was acquitted after twelve or thirteen convictions had been established against him, and was told by the judge that he might leave the dock without any further stain upon his character. Let them compare that with what took place in England. In one case which happened recently in London, the evidence of a police officer was suspected to be false, and within a few weeks he 336 was tried and convicted. Let them compare that with the state of things in Ireland. If the police in London were menaced every man was ready to give them help, because they knew that the police, as a rule, were an honourable body of men, and if they did anything dishonourable there was the authority of public opinion and of the Government of the day to bring the police immediately to trial and justice. Therefore the police man in London was regarded as the honourable defender of the liberty o every man. Here was a man whom the Attorney General dared not declare innocent, but he had to fall back upon the verdict of a packed jury. According to the highest expert testimony, this man was guilty of a forged incitement to crime, and yet he was retained in the service of the Crown in Ireland. This ought not to be a Party question, and whatever might lie their opinion as to the particular form of government and the particular relations between the two countries, all parties ought to be united in preserving the honour, honesty and integrity of the guardians of the peace in Ireland. And yet the Government were retaining in their service a man whom everybody in Ireland, and some great authorities in England, believed to be guilty of forgery. They had made their appeal and they know how it would be answered and what the verdict would ultimately be, namely, that the right hon. Gentleman would have to confess that Sergeant Sullivan belonged to the same class as Sergeant Sheridan.
§ (11.48.) Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes,—117; Noes, 215. (Division List No, 399.)
339| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | O'Malley, William |
| Ambrose, Robert | Healy, Timothy Michael | O'Shee, James John |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Hickman, Sir Alfred | |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst | Horniman, Frederick John | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Priestley, Arthur | |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | |
| Bell, Richard | Jordan, Jeremiah | Reckitt, Harold James |
| Black, Alexander William | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Brigg, John | Rickett, J. Compton | |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Kennedy, Patrick James | Rigg, Richard |
| Burns, John | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | |
| Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | |
| Caldwell, James | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Leamy, Edmund | Runciman, Watler |
| Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | |
| Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Leng, Sir John | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Lough, Thomas | Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lundon, W. | Shackleton, David James |
| Craig, Robert Hunter | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | |
| Crean, Eugene | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Crombie, John William | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Cullinan, J. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Soares, Ernest J. |
| M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R (Northants | |
| Delany, William | M'Govern, T. | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Devlin, Joseph | M'Kean, John | Sullivan, Donal |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | |
| Duncan, J. Hastings | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Taylor, Theodore Cook |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower | |
| Edwards, Frank | Mooney, John J. | Tomkinson, James |
| Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | Moss, Samuel | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Murphy, John | ||
| Ffrench, Peter | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T | |
| Field, William | Nannetti, Joseph P | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Norman, Henry | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co. | Wilson., Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid | |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) | |
| O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid | Young, Samuel | |
| Gilhooly, James | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | O'Brien, William (Cork) | |
| Grant, Corrie | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | |
| O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) | Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien. | |
| Harmsworth, R. Leicester | O'Dowd, John | |
| Harrington, Timothy | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | |
| Hayden, John Patrick | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardener, James Tynte | Balcarres, Lord | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manchr. | Brotherton, Edward Allen |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds | Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Banbury, Frederick George | Butcher, John George |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Bartley, George C T. | |
| Arrol, Sir William | Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Carlile, William Walter |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Bignold, Arthur | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. |
| Bigwood, James | Cautley, Henry Strother | |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Blundell, Colonel Henry | Cavendish, V C. W (Derbyshire |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Bond, Edward | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry | Parker, Sir Gilbert |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hn J A (Worc'r | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfr'd | Pemberton, John S. G. |
| Chapman, Edward | Hare, Thomas Leigh | Percy, Earl |
| Charrington, Spencer | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Churchill, Winston Spencer | Haslam, Sir Alfred S. | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. | Plummer, Walter R |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. | Prettyman, Ernest George |
| Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Helder, Augustus | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col Edward |
| Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole | Henderson, Sir Alexander | Purvis, Robert |
| Compton, Lord Alwyne | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Pym, C. Guy |
| Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas | Hogg, Lindsay | |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Hope, J. F. (Sheflield, Brightside | |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Randles, John S. |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Ranklin, Sir James |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Hoult, Joseph | Rasch, Major Fredrick Carne |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm | Ratcliff R F |
| Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton) | Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil | Ridley, S Forde (Bethnal Green) |
| Crossley, Sir Savile | Hudson, George Bickersteth | Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson |
| Cust, Henry John C. | Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.) | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | ||
| Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye | ||
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Round, Rt. Hon. James |
| Davenport, William Bromley- | Johnstone, Heywood | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham | Rutherford, John | |
| Denny, Colonel | ||
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Kemp, George | |
| Digby, John K. D. Wingfield | Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- |
| Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield | Keswick, William | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph | Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight) | |
| Doughty, George | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th | Shaw-Stewart, M H (Renfrew |
| Doxferd, Sir William Theodore | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Sinclair, Louis (Romford) |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Lawson, John Grant | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East |
| Legge, Colonel Hon. Heneage | Smith, Hon W. F. D. (Strand) | |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Spear, John Ward |
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Stanley, Lord (Lancs) | |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M. Taggart |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | |
| Fergusson Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ |
| Finch, George H. | Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth | Thornton, Percy M |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Tomlinson, Sir Wm Edw M | |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison | |
| Fison, Frederick William | Macdona, John Cumming | |
| Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose- | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | |
| Forster, Henry William | M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E. | |
| Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W. | Malcolm, Ian | Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H |
| Middlemore, John Throgmorton | Warr, Augustus Frederick | |
| Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Webb, Col William George | |
| Galloway, William Johnson | Milvain, Thomas | Welby, Lt.-Col A. C. E. (Taunton) |
| Gardner, Ernest | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | |
| Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (Su. Albans) | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.) | Welby, Sir Charles G E (Notts |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Whiteley, H (Ashton-und Lyne |
| Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts | Moore, William (Antrim, N. | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Gore, Hn G. R. C. Ormsby-(Salop | More, Robert Jasper (Shropshire | |
| Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby-(Linc.) | Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Morrell, George Herbert | Willox, Sir John Archibald |
| Graham, Henry Robert | Morrison, James Archibald | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R. |
| Greene, Sir E. W (B'rySEdm'nds | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Wilson-Todd, Wm H (Yorks |
| Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs. | Muntz, Sir Philip A. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Grenfell, William Henry | Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute | |
| Gretton, John | Myers, William Henry | |
| Greville, Hon. Ronald | ||
| Nicholson, William Graham | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— | |
| Hall, Edward Marshall | Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther. | |
| Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens |