§ (1) The Right Honourable William Huston Dodd, one of the Judges of the King's Bench Division of His Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland, is hereby appointed Commissioner for the purpose of inquiring into, and reporting upon, such complaints as to the treatment of prisoners in Belfast prison in the months of June and July, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, as may be presented to the Commissioner in accordance with the procedure which he may prescribe.
§ (2) In the event of the said Right Honourable William Huston Dodd dying before the completion of the Report or being unable through illness or other sufficient cause to enter upon or to complete the inquiry and report, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland may, with the consent of any other judge of the said court, appoint that judge Commissioner for the purposes aforesaid or such of them as have not been effected, in the place of the said Right Honourable William Huston Dodd, and may exercise the like power if and so often as any such event occurs in the case of any Commissioner appointed by him.
§ (3) In this Act the expression "the Commissioner" includes the Commissioner appointed by this Act and any Commissioner appointed by the Lord Chancellor in pursuance of this Act.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Right Honourable William Huston Dodd, one of the Judges of the King's Bench Division of His Majesty's High Court of Justice in," and to insert instead thereof the words "Lord Chief Justice of."
863 I do not wish in the least degree to reflect on the learned judge whose name appears in the Bill on any ground personal to him. I make the Motion solely on religious grounds, because of a promise made publicly by the Government that this inquiry would be conducted by a Catholic official, namely, The MacDermott, who at that time was, and I believe still is, a member of the Prisons' Board. I have not seen The MacDermott for the last fifteen years, but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in a public speech, invited suggestions as to the proper officer who should be appointed to conduct this inquiry. I suggested in this House the name of The MacDermott, son of the late Attorney-General for Ireland and for a long time a member of the Prisons Board, and the Government in a letter published in all the Irish papers accepted that name and stated that The MacDermott would be proposed in the present Act to conduct this inquiry. Then, without any explanation being offered, the Government bring in a Bill appointing a Presbyterian judge to conduct an inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman stated was to be conducted by one of their own Catholic officials. I consider that a monstrous reflection has been by this change cast upon a blameless official, a man of ancient lineage, of fine country family, who has conducted himself in his official position, so far as I know, without reproach. Why is he to be set aside?
I also object on this ground. I know very well that Mr. Justice Dodd is a man of liberal opinion, who, as Members who cast their minds back seven or eight years will remember, was an honoured and distinguished Member of this House, returned here by the Catholics of Tyrone. Therefore it would be understood that I am not in the least degree objecting to him on any personal grounds whatever, but I propose my Amendment because of the attempt to cast a slight upon a public servant, for no reason that I can see except because of his religion, by the appointment of another gentleman in his place. You could have got Catholic judges if you wished. I have no authority whatever for suggesting the name of the Chief Justice of Ireland. I only put down his name in order to enable me to make this protest. The Chief Justice of Ireland has been entrusted by the late Government, and indeed by the present Government—you never know what to 864 call it—but by the Asquith Government, with the conduct of an inquiry into a matter which attracted much attention at the time—the shooting of the men at Bachelors' Walk by the Scottish Borderers in July, 1914. It is very public-spirited of Mr. Justice Dodd to undertake this inquiry which involves much trouble and work, but a Catholic judge could be obtained to conduct the inquiry on the same lines. That does not exhaust the matter, because the Government can easily get other Catholic officials if they take objection to The MacDermott. The Solicitor-General is a Catholic. I certainly would not object to him. There is also my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Derry (Mr. Henry), a Conservative and Unionist: I would not object to him. He has conducted inquiries for the Government, and he has conducted himself with such ability and impartiality that I am surprised that he has not long since attained high office.
7.0 P.M.
Therefore, I shall not be suspected for a moment when I suggest that a Protestant is not a suitable person for conducting this inquiry of trying to take any advantage either with regard to politics or personally, but I suggest that the matter of this inquiry is one affecting the rites of the Catholic religion and Catholic practices, and when the allegation is that over ninety prisoners were herded into confession manacled and herded to Holy Communion manacled, a Catholic official should be the person to inquire into it. The right hon. Gentleman owes, I think, an explanation to the public. He did send down a Catholic official to inquire into this thing—Major Henry Owen Lewis. I would make him a Commissioner. I have made three suggestions: I have suggested three gentlemen, Unionist in colour. We all know the hon. Member for South Derry is a Unionist; that will not, therefore, be challenged. I think The MacDermott is a Unionist, although really I do not know what his politics are, and I believe that Major Lewis also is a Unionist. This matter is one which hag attracted the keenest interest and attention in Ireland. I hold it should be inquired into by someone who understands the nature of the outrage committed on our religion in the persons of these ninety unfortunate prisoners. I therefore suggest to the Government that they should not persist in demanding that a gentleman, however eminent, of a different faith 865 from that outraged in this case, should sit on an inquiry into the nature and extent of the outrage and the reprobation attaching to it. The inquiry should be conducted by someone who understands what this indignity meant to the ninety men in question.
§ The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Shortt)I cannot accept this Amendment. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy) has asked for an explanation why, after having announced that The MacDermott should hold the inquiry, I made an alteration in the arrangement. I will tell the House exactly why it was done. On the 5th of August last this question was raised by the hon. and learned Member himself. Treating him as a Member of Parliament, I discussed with him the constitution of the tribunal, and I think I was justified in doing that with an independent Member of Parliament. Correspondence passed between us about it. Then I saw in a newspaper that the hon. and learned Member was counsel for one of the parties whose case would come before the tribunal. Obviously it was impossible for me to discuss the constitution of the tribunal with the counsel for one of the parties without the other party being present or knowing anything about it. I asked the hon. and learned Member if the report was true, and he did not deny it; consequently I was obliged to cease to discuss the matter with him, and obviously I could not keep the promise I had made on his suggestion when he is going to be counsel for one of the parties, the other party knowing nothing about it. I was bound to set up some other tribunal. The only reason for the change was that I found that the suggestion had been made not by an honourable Member in his capacity as an independent Member of Parliament, dealing with a matter of interest to him and his constituents, but by counsel for one of the parties. That is the sole explanation, and I say without hesitation it was my bounden duty, when I found that to be the case, to make an alteration in the tribunal which I intended to set up. With regard to the proposal to substitute the Lord Chief Justice for Mr. Justice Dodd, may I point out that in these cases, when it is proposed to appoint a judge as a Commissioner it is necessary to consider the work of the Court and to ascertain which judge can best be spared. The Lord Chancellor is the proper person with 866 whom to consult on these points and Mr. Justice Dodd, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, was asked and has consented to act. There is no question of politics or of religion in the choice of a Commissioner to preside over this tribunal. If the suggestions made in the allegations are true it will not require a Roman Catholic to know that the treatment to which these men were subjected to was outrageous. From the way in which the hon. and learned Member talks one would imagine that the prisoners are being put on their trial in this matter. But the fact is that they are the persons who are making the charges; those who are going to be tried are not the prisoners but the prison officials—the governor, the doctor, and the police—and the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that whether they are Roman Catholics or not, because they are really bringing charges against these prison officials, they are to choose the colour, religious and political, of the persons who are to constitute the tribunal. It is perfectly monstrous that anything of the sort should be suggested. Nothing whatever can be urged against Mr. Justice Dodd, and, under the circumstances, I cannot possibly accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALYThe explanation of the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to do him very much credit. He has given the House an account, wholly inaccurate as far as I am concerned, of what has taken place. When this matter was under debate the right hon. Gentleman at that Table asked for suggestions from me—I am quoting his words—and the next day having given the matter consideration, I got up on my legs in this House and suggested the name of The MacDermott. I was not counsel for the prisoners, I have never been appointed counsel for them, I am not counsel now for them, I have never been given a brief for them, I have never had a retainer for them, and the right hon. Gntleman who is in receipt of a great salary seizes upon a newspaper paragraph, months after this had occurred, and turns round and because I had suggested the name of The MacDermott, and because I might be counsel for the prisoners, says he cannot carry out his promise to appoint him. I think the right hon. Gentleman has some reason for shame in this transaction, because he closured his own letter to me. I sent the right hon. Gentleman's letter to the Press, the letter in which he asked me that question. I sent my reply to him 867 to the Press, but evidently the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that his own letter was unfit for publication.
§ Mr. SHORTTNo.
§ Mr. SHORTTI did.
§ Mr. SHORTTIt was published.
§ Mr. SHORTTMy letter to you.
§ Mr. HEALYCertainly not. Really the Irish air must have an effect on the right hon. Gentleman. The only letter which was published was the letter announcing the appointment of The MacDermott. The right hon. Gentleman wrote me a letter, I will not characterise it now, but I gave a fitting reply to it, and those two letters were closured.
§ Mr. SHORTTThat is not correct.
§ Mr. SHORTTNo.
§ Mr. SHORTTThe hon. and learned Member is quite wrong. The first letter from him was closured by my direction, but the second letter was not closured, and it can be published at any time.
§ Mr. HEALYIt can be published. Why has it not been published? I sent the letter to the Press with my reply some six weeks ago, and not a single Irish paper, by direction of the Censor, has been allowed to publish either the right hon. Gentleman's letter or my reply. I have the letter in type, marked by the newspaper people, "Refused to be published by the Censor." On making inquiry I was told that the Censor was the right hon. Gentleman himself.
§ Mr. SHORTTI say it is not so.
§ Mr. HEALYThe right hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I say that my statement is absolutely correct. The right hon. Gentleman just said the letter was published. In what paper was it published, 868 and when was it published? I say it was never published. I say, too, he was ashamed to publish it. And why? Because I gave it a suitable reply. He has now stated, as I understand—and I hope the Press will take notice of that fact—that his letter can be published.
§ Mr. SHORTTYes, certainly.
§ Mr. HEALYTherefore, as he is the master of the Censor, I hope the Censor will take notice of that. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to agree that my reply should be published?
§ Mr. SHORTTCertainly.
§ Mr. HEALYI hope the Irish Press will take notice of that. I suppose both letters can be published?
§ Mr. SHORTTCertainly not. The first letter prejudges the whole case.
§ Mr. HEALYA Member of Parliament is entitled either in this House or outside to comment on the action of the Government. I was dealing with the action of the Government. I do not want to insist too much upon personalities. I do not want to wrangle with the right hon. Gentleman. I will leave it to the Irish public to judge between us. The Irish public include the electors of Newcastle-on-Tyne, and when they see these letters published for the first time, as they will be, I hope, this week, I hope they will compare the right hon. Gentleman's original statement that one letter was published with his present statement. His suggestion is this—and I ask hon. Members to observe the position taken up by the Irish Government—that if an Irish Member in this House invited by the Government to submit a name for an important Commission acts on that invitation and submits a name in public and not in private, that is a good reason why that person should not be appointed. The invitation came from the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure he was insincere in giving me the invitation. My suggestion may not be the best in the world, but it was adopted by the right hon. Gentleman some days after he had had an opportunity of consulting his colleagues at Dublin Castle upon it. Nobody took any objection to it. His letter was published throughout the length and breadth of Ireland proclaiming that The MacDermott was to be the prison commissioner to inquire into this matter. Out of 5,000,000 of the population of Ireland nobody 869 dreamt of taking any exception to the right hon. Gentleman's nomination of that distinguished man. Subsequently the Chief Secretary saw a paragraph in the newspapers which turns out to be quite erroneous, quite untrue, absolutely false, that I was the counsel for these prisoners. There was not a word of truth in it. He wrote me a letter which he did not allow to be published; I sent a reply which he would not allow to be published, and then without a word he cancels his own published undertaking, and after three months he puts forward a wholly different judge. It is not the prisoners, he says, who are on their trial, it is the officials. Does that make it any better? These officials were in the first place to have a Catholic inspector to consider the matter. They are now to have a Protestant judge to consider it, and there is not a man in Ireland who will believe the story of the Chief Secretary as to the secret of this appointment. Here I have the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and his invitation to me, and certainly I say publicly that so long as the right hon. Gentleman is in office I will not accept any invitation which he may offer to me. He says, I will quote the OFFICIAL REPORT of 5th August, col. 1024—
If my hon. and learned Friend who is always as reasonable and courteous as any man could be—
§ Mr. SHORTTThat was the hon. Member for Somerset.
§ Mr. HEALYThe Report says "My hon. and learned Friend," and in parenthesis "Mr. T. M. Healy." It goes on to say—
who is always as reasonable and courteous as any man could be, thinks I treated him at all unfairly, I very much regret it. On Thursday I had not made up my mind one way or the other. I wanted to see what the answers were, and who exactly had given the answers. I found there was such a grave difference between the two, that I felt the only proper thing to do was to have a really proper inquiry to decide which of the two was right. Of course, whichever side is right, and whichever side is wrong, the natural consequence of what is grave perjury on one side or the other must follow. That is the position. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend, with his great knowledge of both the Irish and the English Bars, will assist me in deciding whom I should ask to conduct the inquiry, in order that the tribunal, whatever it is, may command the widest possible respect both in Ireland and in England.These are the words of the Chief Secretary who held me up to public admiration and invited me, as a person "entitled to 870 respect," and as a "reasonable and courteous man," to give him a suggestion as to who was the proper person to conduct this inquiry. I replied I should have very great pleasure in giving any assistance I could, and the next day I suggested to him the name of The MacDermott as a suitable person from this Bench in this House. Having responded to the demand of the right hon. Gentleman to give him assistance, the fact that I did so is made a ground for setting The MacDermott aside, and appointing a totally different gentleman in his place. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has been ashamed to allow my letters to appear. The first one is never to appear as prejudging the case. Every speech a Member makes is a prejudgment. We are not judges here; we are partisans; we are agitators in this House. I am not here in any judicial position. I was not asked to give judicial advice as to the appointment of The MacDermott; I was giving my advice in this House as Tim Healy, the Member for Cork. Everybody knows who I am. I am a partisan—a political partisan; but this is a matter affecting the treatment of prisoners, whether in Germany or in Ireland. It does not bring in party politics I hope. If the Germans had taken ninety English prisoners, and compelled them to attend the Protestant Holy Table handcuffed, not once, but twice, what would we have had to say to the Kaiser? That is the case I cited and that has been sworn to on oath. The right hon. Gentleman sent Major Henry Owen Lewis to investigate and report, and had the report before him when he asked me who I thought was the proper person to investigate this matter, and I named one of his own prison officials. The right hon. Gentleman has had a very long experience of promises, and this promise will be treated by the Irish people just in the same way as promises of Home Rule, land for the soldiers, and all the promises that he has made since he has been in office. The reason I go into the matter is that when a gentleman is appointed to a great position he owes something to the dignity of that position to which he is appointed. He is the author of the charge which has brought 100 of these prisoners into internment in England, on an assurance given in this House that they had been guilty of participation in a German plot. The Irish people at all events now know what to think of his word on this small incident affecting the position of one of his own officials. 871 Of course, he will not accept the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, a Catholic official, to conduct this inquiry. A Protestant official is to do so. Of course, that does not surprise me, seeing how the Board of Midwives, with one exception, consists of Protestants. As the right hon. Gentleman has taken that line, of course I do not intend to divide in favour of Lord Chief Justice Moloney, but I say this to the right hon. Gentleman, that the Commission will command no more confidence after what has occurred than his word.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. HEALYI beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words,
And such inquiry shall also extend to complaints as to the transfer of said prisoners at any time in Belfast Prison, and to the charges made, and the sentences inflicted on them by visiting justices, and the circumstances of the remission of any such sentences.By this Amendment I propose to provide that all complaints of prisoners in the month of June shall be investigated at this inquiry. The reason why these abominable charges as to these prisoners have taken place is because they were sent to Belfast, and because the Government knew that there they were Orange visiting justices, and that if an inquest was necessary in the case of Ashe in Dublin, the murdered man, the friends of the murdered man would only have an Orange tribunal to appeal to, if a coroner was required. He has herded together all the prisoners of Ireland into one concentration camp in Belfast, far away from their homes, imposing upon those persons disability in regard to visits. They cannot be visited in the ordinary way because they are so far removed from their friends. What we want to do is to try and find out the ground on which the right hon. Gentleman has selected Belfast as the venue in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman yesterday stated, on another point, that the judge would have power in certain matters—that is habeas corpus, I take it—as to expenses, but the right hon. Gentleman has put down no Amendment. The Bill has been on the Paper now for a couple of days, but he has put down no Amendment. He has left it to us to make a suggestion, and therefore, simply with a view to having this matter investigated by a gentleman who now he admits and proclaims has been selected by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland—
§ Mr. SHORTTNo, I said with the approval of the Lord Chancellor.
§ Mr. HEALYThe right hon. Gentleman has appointed him with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, and, I now think that it is not too much to ask that the grievances of prisoners, experienced from their being herded at Belfast from Southern districts, should also be included in the inquiry.
§ Mr. SHORTTI cannot accept this Amendment. The hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that the inquiry is into certain matters of fact. A question of policy, like the movement and transfer of prisoners from one prison to another, can be discussed in this House, and should form no part of that inquiry. With regard to the sentences the judge will have power to inquire. This Amendment is totally unnecessary and involves a question of policy and incidentally gives the hon. and learned Member the opportunity of attacking officials who cannot answer him.
§ Mr. HEALYWith regard to the charge of attacking officials, is the right hon. Gentleman so delicate in his career that he has never ventured at any stage in this House to criticise persons outside it? We are here for that purpose. That is our function. Officials cannot be here to answer. We are here to criticise them. He is there to answer for them. He is paid for it. That is his function, and to suggest that I got up for the purpose of criticising officials who cannot answer—no, Sir, I am criticising a Chief Secretary who cannot answer me!
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.