ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND. (Hansard, 23 June 1840)

The Marquess of Westmeath

had a short statement to make to their Lordships, pursuant to notice, connected with the administration of justice in Ireland. His object was to obtain authentic information, in the shape of documents, connected with a transaction of which he understood the following to be the fact:— A Roman Catholic priest, in the county of Cavan, the Rev. Philip O'Reilly, by name, of the parish of Ballymacue, had chosen to indulge (what was not uncommon in Ireland) in very insulting language from the altar, against any person who might presume to take some land. The words which the priest used were, that, He, who would take this land, ought to have his ears cut off, like a pig's, or an ass's. There were present at the delivery of this sermon, two Roman Catholic policemen, who, in the execution of their duty, laid an information before some magistrates in the neighbourhood. Instead of acting upon it and issuing a warrant, these magistrates forwarded the information, as he understood, to the Government to learn what they should do. The information was returned to the court of magistrates, recommending that the business should be hushed up. A proposal was made to the priest to pay 50l., he supposed to be divided amongst the parties. A magistrate, whose name he would not now mention, proposed that the affair should be submitted to arbitration, and the sworn information was cushioned. It was necessary for either the magistrates, or the Government, or both, to account for this matter. The greatest jealousy and alarm prevailed in Ireland in consequence of the favour which was shown to Roman Catholic priests. A most remarkable interchange of good offices was constantly taking place between them and the Government, who were in a great measure indebted to them for place and power, and the priests availed themselves of this to confirm their influence. The result of all this, as evidenced in the continual application for mitigation of sen- 7 tences, was mischievous to a degree which Englishmen could not imagine. He would refer to a few cases, to show the great partiality which had been shown by the Government to Roman Catholic priests. About seven years ago, a case had occurred at the Cork assizes. A Roman Catholic priest, named Burke, suborned a witness to swear against the gaoler of Macroom for the crime of murder. The witness broke down on his cross-examination, confessed that priest Burke had suborned him to swear away the man's life, and the judge made use of these remarkable expressions:— He congratulated the jury and himself, that they had not been brought to the commission of a legal murder. The man was acquitted, the priest escaped from justice, and staid away three years. He was subsequently apprehended through the exertions of Captain Vignolles, whose name was familiar to their Lordships, as as having been dismissed by her Majesty's Government for a public service, while Captain Gleeson, who had conducted himself towards his superior officer in such a way, that, if he had been in the army, he would have been shot for it, had been appointed barrack-master. The priest was brought to trial, sentenced to three years' imprisonment, and fined 50l. for the offence. The judge expressed his regret, considering the enormity of the offence, that the law did not enable him to pass a more severe sentence. The three years' imprisonment he suffered, but when it came to the payment of the fine, the Government, imposed on by a statement that he was insolvent, reduced the fine to 20l. He begged to call the attention of the legal Lords to this case, and to ask whether there ought to have been the slightest mitigation in the punishment for this man's workmanship. At the Spring assizes of the present year, a Roman Catholic priest, named M'Call, was tried at the Fermanagh assizes for a brutal assault with a horsewhip. He was found guilty, and sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment, and to the payment of 20l. fine. He suffered the three weeks' imprisonment, but the Government went about in a comical way to compromise the remainder of the punishment. He was kept in gaol for three weeks longer, and the fine was reduced from 20l.to 40s. Such was the favour which had been shown to this individual, while other persons would have been kept at the tread-mill until they paid the money. The Roman Catholic popula- 8 tion in Ireland had received the strongest countenance from the "heavy blow and great discouragement "policy; and they were, indeed, considered a very ' liberal ' Government, that was to say, liberal of what did not belong to them. The favour shown by them to the Roman Catholic population had affected the Protestant population with a degree of the most serious alarm. The disgraceful conduct which the priests had latterly displayed, had never made its appearance until the college of Maynooth was established, since which time the priests were chosen from the dregs of the people. They were by no means entitled to the degree of favour which the Government had shown them. They took great credit to themselves for retrieving the Irish people from drunkenness. But how was this accomplished? By the poor friar, who thus outstripped the parochial clergy in the discharge of their own duties, and turned the people away from this abominable vice. Their Lordships would perceive from evidence lying on their table, and tile noble Marquess (Normanby) must be aware from experience during his ovation in Ireland, that of the sentences remitted by the noble Marquess in nine cases, the applications had been signed by Roman Catholic priests. Into their hands, in short, the Protestants of Ireland felt that every thing was now thrown. The noble Marquess concluded by moving for Copies of any report or reports made to the Irish Government relative to the conduct of the Rev. Philip O'Reilly, Roman Catholic priest, of the county of Cavan, and of informations exhibited against him by any of the constabulary police for his having used language of an inflammatory character in his chapel, and to the congregation there, inciting to acts of violence against any persons relative to the taking of land. Also copies of the informations, &c., exhibited against the said Mr. O'Reilly, or any other Rowan Catholic priest implicated thereby in the same. Also, copies of all correspondence between the Irish Government and any magistrate, stipendiary or otherwise, attending the petty sessions of Ballymacue, in the county of Cavan, relative to this transaction. And also, copies of any report made to the Irish Government by any magistrate, stipendiary or otherwise, relative to the same.

The Marquess of Normanby

said, the the noble Marquess opposite had concluded his speech by stating that, in his opinion, he had laid sufficient grounds for the production of the documents for which he had 9 moved. If the noble Marquess was convinced that such was the case, he did not think that any other of their Lordships would also be convinced. The noble Marquess stated, that he wanted the production of papers, or an explanation of the particulars relative to the case which he had brought before their Lordships. He must refuse the papers, but would willingly give the particulars. He should state to their Lordships the real facts of the case, and he hoped on doing so, he should be able to convince them that they ought not to consent to the motion for the production of documents. The noble Marquess had said, that the Protestants ought to be protected, and in that opinion he fully agreed. The noble Marquess had said, that this was a question between Protestant and Roman Catholic, and that the cause of complaint had reference to the taking of land. Now, he could assure their Lordships, that this was not a question between Protestant and Roman Catholic, and that it had nothing whatever to do with land. The statements of the noble Marquess were, therefore, incorrect. Four-fifths of the speech of the noble Marquess was an attack on the Roman Catholic priests. At all events, this was a question, not between Protestant and Roman Catholic, but between Roman Catholic priest and Roman Catholic priest: and when he mentioned that fact, their Lordships would see how applicable the declaration was which the noble Marquess had, for, perhaps, the hundredth time, addressed to the House. He should simply state the facts to their Lordships. The noble Marquess said, that the papers relative to this case, had been laid before before the Government, and that the Government had declined to take any proceedings. The fact, however, was, that whatever had had been done, had been done not as the noble Marquess stated, by the Government of its own accord, but on the recommendation of the bench of magistrates, before whom the information had been laid, and who were perfectly acquainted with the real merits of the case. This was not only a a question between Roman Catholic priest and Roman Catholic priest, but it was also a question between two priests, both of the name of O'Reilly, while the person aggrieved was also one O'Reilly. It was perfectly true that Philip O'Reilly did use, not the language which the noble Marquess had quoted, but language exclusively improper, more particularly when the place where it was used was considered. He agreed with the no- 10 ble Marquess, that such language ought to be discouraged, and that it was highly improper that such addresses should be made from the altar. He had, while in Ireland, always expressed himself strongly against such a course of proceeding, and he was aware that his noble Friend (the present Lord-lieutenant) had in every case discouraged such addresses to the people from the altar. The complaint which the noble Marquess had brought forward, had originated in a memorial, which had been addressed to the Government by the other priest, O'Reilly, not with reference to land, but as to the supposed right of his broker to the customs of a fair. It was the custom in Ireland for the person who had a right to the customs to stand in the fair "gap" as it was called, with a cudgel in one hand and a book in the other, not necessarily a bible, and unless those attending the fair declared on the book, that the custom had been paid, they were not admitted. Now, in the case which the noble Marquess had brought forward, it was the exercise of this right by the brother of the priest, which was the cause of complaint. A memorial on the subject was addressed to the Lord-lieutenant, and that memorial was forwarded to Mr. Little, a stipendiary magistrate. Mr. Little was a person well known to some of their Lordships, and had ever proved himself an efficient and impartial public officer. That magistrate was sitting in sessions with other two magistrates, viz., Mr. Morton, and a magistrate of the same name as the priests—another Mr. O'Reilly. These gentlemen heard the informations which had been laid in this case, and gave the matter the fullest consideration, and so far from Mr. Little having favoured Father O'Reilly, that person had actually complained to the Government of the conduct of the magistrate in having brought forward prematurely some portion of the evidence. These magistrates had made themselves fully acquainted with the whole facts of the case, and they were also perfectly aware of the state of the country, but they had all concurred in the recommendation which had been made to the Lord-lieutenant. They stated in their memorial that Father O'Reilly having acknowledged the language he had used to have been highly improper, and that as he had asked for mercy and given the most ample promise to abstain from such language in future, they considered under all the circumstances of the case that the law 11 had been sufficiently vindicated. It was on that recommendation of the magistrates that the Government had acted. It was a mere exercise of the discretion of the Lord-lieutenant, who, after having consulted the law-officers of the Crown, had considered further proceedings in the case unnecessary. Having stated this much in explanation of the case which the noble Marquess had brought forward, and which he hoped would be satisfactory to their Lordships, he did not consider it necessary to go into the other cases to which the noble Marquess had alluded. As to the case of Father Burke, the whole time of his imprisonment had been allowed to expire, and the fine, he believed, had been paid. In the case of Father M'Call, the complaint seemed to be that that person had been confined three weeks beyond the time of his sentence, and such a proceeding could hardly be considered as an act of partiality to the Roman Catholics. He must say that he did not think the noble Marquess, by throwing out random charges against the Roman Catholics, pursued a course tending to insure the peace of the country, and for himself, he would never hear the Roman Catholic priests attacked without acknowledging the valuable assistance he had received from them while in Ireland. It appeared to him that this was not a case which ought to have been brought before their Lordships, and he hoped, after the explanation he had given, that they would not consent to the motion for the production of the papers for which the noble Marquess asked.