§ EARL SPENCERMy Lords, I must ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes before the commencement of the Business of the evening. I do so with confidence, because I know your Lordships are in the habit of allowing any Member of the House to correct any statement made in public and which affects his honour in the conduct of public affairs. I noticed in the usual channels of information of last Tuesday a statement which purported to have been made in "another place" by Mr. Mitchell Henry, the hon. Member for the county of Galway, and which, I think, does reflect on me in the manner to which I have just referred. In a discussion on the Peace Preservation Act that hon. Member alluded to the case of a person named Patrick Casey, who, when I was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, was arrested and detained under an Act 211 known as the Westmeath Act. Mr. Mitchell Henry is reported to have said that Casey was kept in solitary confinement for several years, that he was cut off from all communication with the outer world, and that it was his belief that Casey had been forgotten by the Government until his case was brought under the notice of the House of Commons. I have thought it right to communicate with the hon. Member, and it appears that, with some slight exception, the reports correctly represent what he said. Now, my Lords, I do not intend to discuss the wisdom of the policy of the Act of Parliament which passed in 1871; but I may say that it threw a very grave and weighty responsibility on the Government of Ireland, and more particularly on the Lord Lieutenant, who is mainly responsible for carrying it out. I endeavoured, when in Ireland, to use the powers which it conferred on me with prudence, justice, and watchfulness; and when exercising them I was in constant communication on the subject with the other Members of the Irish Government. Having said so much on the general question, I shall now endeavour to give your Lordships an accurate statement of the case of Patrick Casey, and then leave it to your Lordships to say whether there was any foundation for the statements made in "another place." First, my Lords, the hon. Member states that the prisoner was kept in solitary confinement for several years. It was wisely provided in 1871 that rules should be laid down as to the manner in which imprisonment under the Act should be carried out, and on referring to these rules, I see that during six hours a day prisoners confined under the Act were to be allowed to join other prisoners. I do not know myself exactly how those rules were carried out; but I do know that while I was in Ireland I made frequent inquiries, and that during nearly the whole of his time the prisoner was in communication with other prisoners. Within the last few months of his release he was the only prisoner charged with the same species of offence in the place where he was confined, and consequently he was in "solitary" confinement. But, my Lords, that is a very different thing from what was stated. I need not say anything as to the alleged statement about the prisoner having been cut off from all connection 212 with the outer world, because the hon. Member takes exception to that part of the report; but when I come to the statement that the prisoner had been overlooked until the notice of the House of Commons was directed to his case, I think that a very serious charge against the Government of Ireland, and a particularly serious charge against myself, who was responsible for the Government of Ireland at the time to which allusion was made by the hon. Member. Now, my Lords, the warrant for Casey's arrest was signed on the 8th of December, 1871; he was arrested on the 13th of the same month, and I left Ireland on the 25th of February, 1874. Through the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, I have been able to refresh my memory by a reference to official documents. I find that from the 13th of December, 1871, to the 25th of February, 1874, there were eight memorials on behalf of Casey considered by the Irish Government—and I may mention that one of those was addressed to me by the late Mr. John Martin, Member for the county of Meath. I am quite sure, from the honesty and straightforwardness of that Gentleman, that he would have been no party to such a statement as that which has rendered this explanation necessary on my part. Well, there were four special medical reports in the case, and I myself made 14 special Minutes in reference to it when brought under my consideration. On the 1st of January, 1872, application was made for permission for the prisoner to marry, he being then in the prison of Naas; and though the marriage did not come off, the permission for it was accorded. I mention this to show how carefully these cases were kept under view. In a memorial presented in November, 1873, it is stated that the prisoner "had no cause to complain of his treatment." I have further to say that at one time, with my entire approval, the prisoner was removed, by order of the Lords Justices, from Naas to Dublin, in order that he might have additional medical treatment; and in a Minute made by me on the 26th of December, 1873, after stating my decision respecting an application for his release, I added—"If his case is not brought forward by memorial before the 31st of March, let it then be submitted." I may mention that when such an ap- 213 placation was brought forward it was always my desire, if it could be done with safety, to release the prisoner; but I considered that in this case we could not do so. I hope, my Lords, I have shown there was no justification for the statement made in "another place." I confess, my Lords, that if the statement were well founded, I should have felt unworthy to sit in your Lordships' House, and certainly most unworthy of the trust confided to me by Parliament when it placed in my hands as Lord Lieutenant powers which are inconsistent with the spirit of the English law, and which are to be justified only by the urgent necessity of protecting life in Ireland.