I regret, Sir, that I was not quite able to complete the observations which I wished to make on this Vote at a previous Sitting, the Rules of the House making me under the necessity to ask the Committee to allow me to detain it a little longer while I state my case. Well, Sir, this Vote for the Registrar General's Office is a Vote for £16,126—precisely the same amount, to a single sovereign, that it was last year. I propose to move the reduction of it by the sum of £20, and that £20 will be found at page 195 of these Estimates, being an addition to the existing rate of pay of the Secretary, Mr. Matthison. Now, Sir, this increased rate of pay is taken in connection with the reorganization of the Office. The figures set forth in the page I have mentioned would show what the old organization was, and also what the new establishment is to be. There is the Registrar General at the head of the Office with a salary of £1,000 a-year. Under him there are a Secretary at £600 a-year; one Superintendent of Records, with a maximum of £450; two first-class clerks going up to a maximum salary of £400; five second-class clerk going up to a maximum of £300; and eight third-class clerks going up to a maximum of only £200; besides 13 Lower Division clerks also going up to a maximum of £200. Now, the alteration which has been made is this—the first-class clerks and the Superintendent of Records are hereafter to be called Superintendents, and instead of having £450 or £400 a-year, they are to go up to a maximum of £500. The second-class clerks, or such of them as remain, are to be called Deputy Superintendents, and they are to have a maximum of £330 instead of £300; but the extra £30 is only to be personal to those now holding the posts. With regard to the third-class clerks, there is absolutely no change whatever, and all these men are men of very long service—so much so that even the third-class clerks have had service varying from 17 to 23 or 24 years. They have been for a very long time at their maximum, and have no prospect of promotion, and altogether their case is exceedingly hard. They are also the only third-class clerks now left in any Office in Ireland. The Office has been from time to time examined or inquired into by Commissions, and these Commissions have uniformally reported in favour of improvement in the status and pay of the juniors of the establishment; but whatever benefit is secured to anyone under the present reorganization is entirely monopolized by men in superior positions, and those in need of improvement in their position get nothing at all. Well, Sir, the explanation of it is to be found, I presume, in the fact that though the Treasury were willing to assent to a reorganization of the Office, they were not willing to assent to any additional expenditure in connection with it. The thing had to be done, if done at all, on a sum not exceeding the previous Vote, and it was done, and the fact that it was done is a very startling illustration of the extraordinary things which maybe done with figures in these Estimates and with a staff of men in these Public Departments—that is to say, whenever any personal influence or personal interest makes it worth the while of an individual to set himself about the work. Now, Sir, how was this reorganization carried out, and how were some men's positions improved without increasing the total of the Vote? It was done by a very simple expedient—by sacrificing the juniors in a very disgraceful manner—those of the third-class and those of the Lower Division—and taking their pay to augment the salaries of the better paid portion of the staff. The money so saved has gone to increase the salaries of the Secretary and the new Superintendents and Deputy Superintendents, and of the third-class clerks—the most numerous portion of the whole Office on the old establishment—not one single man has been benefited. Not one has received any increase of pay. Not one has had his maximum salary raised, and not one has had his position improved in any way whatever, but the status of every one of them has been materially injured in this way—that the number of posts to which the third-class clerks look forward with a prospect, which is a very thin one, of promotion has been diminished, and their prospects of promotion diminished also. But besides that, by an arrangement which is altogether anomalous in the Service, at any rate in regard to such Offices as these, these posts are now above the third-class clerks, and are to be filled, not by promotion in due course as in other Offices, but at the discretion of the Head of the Office, the Registrar General, from outsiders—men who have had no official experience and no position, and who, coming in, will take away those better positions which ought to be given in due course to the juniors of the establishment. Well, Sir, not only that, but these third-class clerks have been injured in their status, because they have been now associated, for all practical purposes, with the Lower Division clerks, who before were recognized as having a lower official status. They are to be left with them, and the Lower Division clerks, who had no prospect before of passing over the heads of the third-class clerks, are now to be made equal with them, and eligible for such promotion as may be going in the Office. Well, Sir, the general result of this reorganization, when looked at from a financial point of view, is rather remarkable, and comes out in this way. Whereas the nine men in the upper part of the Office divide between them £4,257 a-year, 26 men in the lower part of the Office divide between them only the sum of £2,912. A more inequitable distribution of a money Vote, or of the administration of an Office, cannot be conceived. I regret to say that those who had this matter in hand are able to appeal to the sanction given to the arrangement by Sir Robert Hamilton, who is a very able, a very courageous, and a very fair-minded public servant. I have not a word to say against him, and I regret that he has been led into sanctioning this scheme, which he would never have originated himself. If he had had the work to do the result would have been very different from what it has been. He would have remembered the very great difficulty which the clerical staff of his own old Office, the Admiralty, had at the hands of the Government when reorganized seven or eight years ago. On that occasion nobody's interests were injured. Those who were affected at all were affected beneficially. They had their status as well as their pay improved, and those clerks who retired, retired on exceptionally favourable terms, in striking contrast with the stingy, unjust, and sorry terms on which some men, at any rate, in this Office have been treated. Well, Sir, I do not attach very much importance to the fact that Sir Robert Hamilton sanctioned this scheme, because it is a matter of notoriety that he has had his hands very full of a multiplicity of affairs for the last 12 months. Very few men in the Public Service had such difficult, responsible, and sustained work to do as he, and it is impossible to believe that he could have given that careful attention and scrutiny to the routine and internal de- tails of this Office which would be absolutely necessary in order to do justice to the parties concerned. I, therefore, do not complain of him. Neither do I complain of the last Administration or of the present Administration. I should not be prepared to hold either Government responsible for this. But I do hold responsible the Secretary of the Office, who, I believe, has entirely mystified both the present and the last Administrations. That Secretary is Mr. Mathison. The history of that gentleman is very remarkable. I have a good deal of information on the subject, but I shall not bring it forward now because it would not be fair to him—and I desire to treat him fairly, as everybody else—unless he personally had an opportunity of replying to the complaints which might be made. I, therefore, abstain from going into any details with regard to Mr. Mathison's rise. His father used to be Clerk of the Council in the Castle at Dublin. There is a very strong feeling that there ought to be a very careful and independent inquiry into the scheme of reorganization by some persons who would not be at all afraid of high placed officials either at Dublin Castle or at Whitehall—who would examine everything on its merits, and entirely without any dread lest they should in cur the displeasure of the Departments in Dublin, or of the Treasury. So far with regard to the reorganization. Now with regard to the particular reduction which I propose to move, it is a very small reduction of only £20, and it is on the salary of the Secretary to the Office. There is no earthly reason why that Secretary should have his pay increased. Mr. Trevelyan, when Chief Secretary, on the 7th of March, 1884, in reply to Mr. Dawson, then Member for Carlow, stated that it was not intended to increase the pay of Mr. Mathison at all, and there was no reason for doing so. Well, now, his pay is increased. He gets £20 more out of identically the same total Vote, and out of a Vote for salaries which is £105 less than it used to be. He gets it at somebody's expense. I have shown how the thing has been brought about. This evidently requires some justification, and the attempted justification is explained in a note. There is an asterisk against the total of £800, the proposed maximum of the Office, and the note says—"This salary includes remuneration for Census duties." Now, it does not include that remuneration in connection with the Census of 1881—that was paid for, and very liberally paid for, Mr. Mathison receiving an allowance of £1,000, which I am sorry to say he did not share with the men who did the work. But it was found by the Treasury, after the £1,000 was paid, that the work in connection with the Census was so quickly got rid of—all that remained which was supposed to be so very heavy was so quickly despatched—that the Treasury would not be very much inclined to devote £1,000 for the same purpose again. But what is now done is this: Mr. Mathison's salary is to be raised by an annual increment up to a maximum of £800 a-year on the strength of Census duties. Now, there will be no Census again until the year 1891; they are, therefore, proposing, at the instigation of Mr. Mathison, to give him pay for duties which possibly he may never live to discharge. It is perfectly absurd to begin in 1886 to give a man pay for duties which he will not undertake until 1891. That item, therefore, appears to be perfectly indefensible; and, though I should like to be able to move a reduction of the Vote which would signalize the sense of the Committee on the whole scheme of re-organization which has been adopted in the Department, I must, as I am unable to do that, content myself by moving this reduction of £20 on the salary of Mr. Mathison.

The hon. Member who has moved this reduction (Mr. A. O'Connor) has pointed out that there is a certain coincidence in the amount asked for this year and the amount asked for last year—that the two amounts are precisely the same. But I think he did not point out that that circumstance is not due to the fact that the salaries are exactly the same, be- cause there is a reduction in the amount of the salaries of £105; and therefore the sum is made up in other ways, which do not affect the question that he has brought forward. Sir, I am in a position to say that this re-organization scheme was most carefully gone into by independent officers. As I understand the hon. Member, he desires to have an inquiry into this re-organization made by somebody independently of the Office in Dublin. Now, Sir, if that is the object which the hon. Member has in view, that object has already been attained; because, when the re-organization was effected, it was inquired into not only by Mr. Holmes, but also by an officer sent over from the Treasury who had no connection whatever with the Irish Office, and who is an officer in whom the Treasury have great confidence. He was sent for the special purpose of examining into the question of re-organization, and it was most carefully considered at the time; and the decision arrived at is one which I believe received the approval, not only of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary (Mr. John Morley), but also of my immediate Predecessor (Mr. Henry H. Fowler). Sir, the financial results will be, I believe, as follows:—The salaries, which in 1885–6 were £7,535, will, in 1886–7, be £7,419, showing a decrease of £116; but the future amount of these salaries will be £6,803, showing a saving of £732. The hon. Member has referred to the Secretary, and to the increase which has been made to his salary; and he has mentioned also the fact that he received a gratuity of £1,000 on the occasion of the last Census. I believe the facts are that this salary, as it existed before, was under an arrangement by which the Secretary was entitled to £1,000 every 10 years. That arrangement was not thought to be a useful one; and, as the hon. Member says, it has been arranged that the £1,000 shall be spread over the period, and, therefore, as regards the work for which the Secretary got £1,000 at the end of every 10 years, he will, in future, do it without the payment of the gratuity which he has hitherto received for it, and of course for the payment which his salary is now to be made to cover. Sir, I do not think that I can usefully occupy the time of the Committee by going further into this question. I am assured by those who have the best means of judging that the work of the Office is exceedingly well done. I believe the hon. Member himself made no complaints whatever as to the way in which the work is performed. I am told the work is well done; and, with regard to the question of the second and third-class clerks, the hon. Gentleman has said it is not intended to replace the second-class clerks by the existing third-class clerks, or men called by that name; but those positions will be opened to the Lower Division clerks, and, therefore, it is an injury to the third-class clerks, as it will sooner or later benefit, not them, but those who fill the Lower Divisions. But, according to the result of the examination made into it, the work done by these clerks is work done by what is known as the Lower Division clerks. I do not think that I can add anything more. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that the question was most carefully considered, and that the re-organization was approved, not only by the Lord Lieutenant, and also by Sir Robert Hamilton, of whom the hon. Member has most fairly spoken as being a man in whom we must have confidence, but by Mr. Holmes, our officer in Dublin, as well, and also by the special officer who was sent over by the Treasury; and, therefore, the Treasury could hardly have taken more complete means to secure that the reorganization should be carried out in the best possible manner at their disposal.

Notwithstanding the explanation which has just been given by the Secretary to the Treasury, I hope the hon. Member who has raised this question will press his Motion to a division. Before I at all thought of becoming a Member of this House I paid attention to this very question, and I have come to the conclusion that it is a matter that ought seriously to be inquired into by this House, and that this Vote ought to be resisted. Now, I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily. Hon. Members opposite will bear me out in saying that I have not wasted much time as yet, and I have no desire to do so. But I want to point out that the re-organization of this office was not initiated by the Executive, and there were no complaints of inefficiency, or that the Office did not work properly. The re- organization was the work of the Secretary, and of no other person. Now, no inquiry was held. It is the rule to reorganize offices after an inquiry has been held into their working; but no inquiry was held into the working of this Office. I repeat that this re-organization scheme is the work of the Secretary of the Office, and of no other person. The result of it, no matter what may be said, is simply this—that Mr. Mathison has succeeded in promoting some special favourites of his own to higher positions and higher salaries; and he has succeeded in throwing on the world, with much smaller pensions than they would otherwise have had, several men who were not so popular with him as they might have been. The Secretary to the Treasury says that this gratuity of £1,000 is to be discontinued, and that in lieu of it Mr. Mathison is to get £20 of salary added each year. But he has got his £1,000 for the last Census. Why, then, should you give him the increase before the next Census is taken? If the hon. Member goes to a division on this Motion I shall support him; and I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to seriously look into this question, get to the root of the matter, and have it out with Mr. Mathison.

I also would support this Motion, Sir. I am well acquainted with the circumstances of the re-organization of this Office, and I have no hesitation in saying that it is a thing which has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction among the officials in the Registrar General's Department, and a general belief, which I have no doubt is well founded, that the whole scheme proceeded from one mind, which appears to be that of the only person who has received any benefit; whereas, on the other hand, some men who are most deserving have been thrown upon the world after 20 years of labour with very trifling salaries. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will really look into this case again, and have it reconsidered, with the view of admitting in some practical sense the injustice that has, no doubt, been done. I will support the hon. Member in a division on this subject.

I also will vote with the hon. Member who has moved this reduction to mark my sense of the injustice that has been done. I do not believe that anyone in this House or out of it believes that the Secretary to the Treasury contemplates doing any injustice; but the figures show that injustice is being done somewhere. Any reform or economy generally presses upon someone or other, and there is generally a more lavish expenditure in some direction or other. The people of the Department feel that an injustice has been done, not by public inquiry or pressure from without, but by pressure from within; and I hope the hon. Gentleman will go to a division, as the only way of marking our sense of the injustice that has been done.

I should like the Secretary to the Treasury to tell us the details of this extraordinary arrangement by which one man is recognized as having obtained a sum of £1,000 every 10 years. That is what I think he told us—that there was a special arrangement for the allowance of the Secretary to the Registrar General's Office whereby he was to get £1,000 every 10 years.

I do not know the details of the arrangement. I merely stated what is the fact—that in addition to his salary he had attached to it a gratuity amounting to £1,000 for each 10 years, and that £1,000 was paid practically when the work was done. As the hon. Member knows, the work of the Census extends over a period of years—I will not say over 10 years, but over two or three or four years—and it was thought better to make the arrangement now made. No doubt, a great deal of increased work is thrown upon the Secretary by the Census, and he will not get increased pay in a lump sum, but extended over the whole period by an increased salary, and he will not be entitled to £1,000 in a lump sum again. That is done away with, and whatever extra work may be thrown upon him will be included in his ordinary salary.

Surely the hon. Gentleman must see the significance of this. This officer is entitled to £1,000 every 10 years for work done. [Mr. JACKSON: Was entitled.] Well, was entitled. There has been no work done for this increase of salary yet, and there cannot be any done for the next three or four years at any rate. Why not delay the payment until the work is done, and not begin to pay it at once? There is another point that the Committee should take special notice of—that when the maximum of £800 a-year is reached, this gentleman will be drawing £200 a-year more than he draws now, and that in 10 years will make £2,000 instead of £1,000; and where as before it was a gratuity, now it is turned into salary; and when a Civil servant retires his pension would be calculated, not upon the salary of £600, but upon the salary of £800, £200 of which ought to be gratuity, on which, according to the Rules of the Service, no pension should be granted at all.

Suppose anything were to happen to him before the next Census is taken—he would have been drawing this money absolutely for nothing. This is a very small matter; but it should be carefully considered.

I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury, or any other official, whether he would explain one or two variations in this Vote? Now, under Sub-head B, for the Crown and Treasury Solicitor, the sum has gone up from £2,000 last year to £2,600 this year; under Subhead C there is a fresh item for Sessional Crown Solicitor of £325 a-year, which does not appear in last year's Vote at all; and under Sub-head G the charge for printing briefs with the sanction of the Attorney General has gone up from £50 to £200.

With regard to the first item, the increase in the salary of the Crown and Treasury Solicitor from £2,000 to £2,600, that is to be explained in this way:—The former salary was £1,200 a-year and £800 for allowance, which made it up to £2,000; but in addition to that he received a large amount of fees which he did not account for to the Treasury, in accordance with the terms of his appointment. A Committee to investigate that and other matters was held about 1884, and one of the recommendations was that he should be paid a salary and account for all the fees he received, and we have carried out that recommendation, and having regard to the amount of fees paid hitherto the salary was fixed at £1,800. If the hon. Member will look at the Vote he will find an estimated extra receipt of £500, so that in reality this is a change to a permanent salary instead of being paid, as previously, partly by fees. The other point to which attention has been called is the sum of £325 for Sessional Crown Solicitor—Mr. Thomas Boyd, the Crown Solicitor for Tipperary. Formerly there were two Crown Solicitors for that county, which was divided into two parts or ridings; and Mr. Boyd, who has had increased duties, has frequently made application for an increase of salary, and in regard to the extent of his duties and the largeness of the county the increase has been fixed at £325. I may mention that Mr. Boyd has BOW ceased to be Sessional Crown Solicitor, and the salary will now be fixed on a different scale in accordance with recommendations which have been made. The extra payment for briefs is due to the fact that a representation has been made that the sum hitherto provided has not been sufficient, and it is very convenient that a change should now be made. An additional sum is asked for this year because there are cases in which it is necessary, and the sum asked for will not be more than is required to pay for the extra service.

I wish to draw attention to the state of affairs which prevails in the county of Galway at the present time, where there is a clergyman at present in gaol; and I want, in doing so, particularly to allude to the conduct of the Crown Solicitor, Mr. Blake. I think it is generally known that it is owing to that man's conduct that this clergyman is imprisoned, and it is because of his attitude that better counsels did not prevail on the occasion of the hearing of the case. Father Fahy was summoned on Friday last to the Petty Sessions to answer to a charge of intimidation made against him by Mr. Lewis, and the case was heard, and after the hearing one of the Resident Magistrates said from the Bench that he quite concurred in the view of the case put forward by Father Fahy's solicitor—that the Rev. Mr. Fahy had gone as a peacemaker, solely with the intention of guaranteeing protection and promoting the peace, and that he sincerely desired to act as a mediator between Mr. Lewis and his enemies. Well, I believe that Colonel Waring, this magistrate, suggested at the trial to Mr. Lewis's solicitor, who represented the Crown, that it would be advisable that there should be an amicable settlement, and that the result might be that Mr. Lewis and Father Fahy might be better friends. But Mr. Blake, the Crown Solicitor, persevered in insisting that Father Fahy should be bound over to keep the peace, in consequence of which Father Fahy was sent to Galway Gaol. It can easily be conceived why a clergyman would refuse to stamp himself as a malefactor by giving bail for his good conduct. He declared that he had no intention of intimidating—that it was far from his purpose—that his purpose was, by mediation, to contribute to restore peace and order in the district. But owing to the conduct of this Mr. Blake he is placed in gaol for a good while, because he desired to be a mediator and to bring peace and harmony into the district. I wish to point out to the Committee what connection Mr. Blake has with these evictions in another form. Mr. Blake is the solicitor for this Mr. Lewis, and therefore stands in a dual capacity as solicitor for Mr. Lewis and as normal legal adviser to the Government. He was instrumental in instigating more than one piece of harsh treatment against the tenantry. The condition of the affairs of the tenantry of Mr. Lewis, or Mrs. Lewis—I do not know which—is most extraordinary, and also of the tenantry of Lord Clanricarde. They illustrate how difficult it is to keep peace and order where a few unscrupulous persecuting landlords proceed to extremities. About six months ago three landlords in the district of Woodford took proceedings against their tenantry. The three were Sir Henry Burke, Mrs. Lewis, and Lord Clanricarde. Of the three landlords the only one who did not repeatedly within this generation make advances to raise rents on the tenants was Sir Henry Burke. He, of the three within this generation, did not raise the rents of his tenantry. At the same time, the tenantry found they could not pay the entire rent, and they asked a reduction, which reduction he refused. So did all three. The reduction was 15 per cent—3s. in the pound—but I wish to illustrate the conduct of Mr. Blake in this matter, and how it is that by official legerdemain he manages to keep this district in hot water. Sir Henry Burke found that it was impossible for him, after obtaining decrees, to get the rents he had proceeded for, so he settled with his tenantry, giving them what they demanded, and not merely that, but paying himself the costs of the proceedings. Now, concerning the other two—Mrs. Lewis and Lord Olanricarde—the history of their property is most extraordinary. Lord Clanricarde never laid out 6d. on his property. The property is a mountain property.

Order, order! The hon. Member must connect his observations with the Vote. He cannot enter into a general discussion of this nature.

This Mr. Blake is a Crown Solicitor, and I want to point out how this gentleman, instead of being, as he ought to be, a machine for promoting order in the district, is an inciter of disorder. And, in giving a history of these properties, I only want to point out how it is that this gentleman and other gentlemen in connection with these estates have been, for their own selfish ends, driving the tenants into a state of despair, and preventing anything like a right or good feeling between the tenantry and their landlords.

The hon. Member must direct attention to the action of this gentleman as Crown Solicitor.

Very well, Sir; I bow to your ruling. If I cannot be allowed to illustrate the course of proceedings—if I cannot point out how it is that this gentleman is guilty, to a great extent, of much of the disturbance and much of the disorder in Galway—if I cannot go into the history of this so as to show completely to the Committee why it is that I would ask the authorities to interpose over his head to settle the breach, I may, at least, point out that a number of people were arrested n consequence of the evictions which look place, and their arrest has, to a certain extent, contributed to the excitement of the district. I would not for a moment infringe on your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and if I cannot touch that which I thought I might touch I must pass from it; but what I would ask the authorities to do in this matter is this—that they would accept bail, and instruct this Mr. Blake, who, as the representative of the Crown, refused to accept bail for these poor men, that he must do so. Now, what are these men in for but resistance to eviction? There is in the breast of an Irishman, as in the breast of an Englishman, the idea that a man's house is his castle, and these men resisted their eviction as long as they could. I must say, further, that some of them ceased that resistance, after three or four hours, on the promise made by one of the Resident Magistrates that no proceedings would be taken against them. But proceedings have been taken against them since, and they, like the rest, will be placed on the roll and returned for trial, bail being refused. Now, it has been contended that these poor people committed some awful crime, for which it would be impossible that the Crown could sanction their bail. I have given a small idea of what the nature of their crime was. It is said that they poured hot lime on the officers sent against them. Well, if they did, is that a greater crime than throwing vitriol in a man's face? We had the Wicklow case a few years ago, where a lady threw vitriol in a man's face. I would point to the fact that that is at least as bad as hot lime, yet she was admitted to bail before the trial came on, and she got married to her sweetheart. The contention set up by the Crown is that these men committed a heinous crime in throwing hot lime, and that it would be bad for the peace of the district to let them out on bail. But that would really be the best assistance to the people, and would help most particularly to restore that order and that peace for which the district is looking; and I would ask that these men should be admitted to bail. It is in the power of the Attorney General to do it. He should order these men to be admitted to bail, and then Father Fahy would give bail on his own account, and that would do more to restore the peace of the district than the harsh measures of this sort of vengeance which Mr. Blake is pursuing in Galway. It is because of the resistance—because of the desperate resistance—which the people made to their eviction that Mr. Blake is pursuing them now with his vengeance. He wants to establish a reign of terror in the district, so that it should be easy for him by-and-bye to carry out out a further score of evictions which he has prepared for the people of the district. I would ask that the Government should interfere with this man in his high-handed proceedings, and that they will see that milder measures shall prevail in order to restore peace in Galway. Now, Father Fahy is a respectable gentleman—a clergyman, whose only purpose was that he might bring peace and concord into his parish, and that the tyrants who would strike some of his parishioners should pause awhile, that the people should not be driven from their homes, and he went to this Mr. Lewis with the desire that he might use his influence to bring about a settlement. That was his purpose in going there. He denied that he had any other purpose. Mr. Lewis himself declined, and when Mr. Lewis refused compliance their mutual passions rose, and they had an angry altercation, the result being that Father Fahy, in a moment of excitement, might have used language which could be construed into words of intimidation; but he disavows having used them. He disavows having any intention of intimidation, and his only purpose was peace; and Mr. Blake, in having pressed him with the rigour of the law, and in insisting that he should be bound over to keep the peace—MR. Blake overstepped his office on that occasion. Father Fahy's arrest has led not to peace, not to order, not to tranquillity—it has led to excitement, and it is more likely to lead to disorder. How long will this continue? What will be the results by-and-bye? I do not think a people in a state of excitement are to the same extent accountable for their actions as they would be under ordinary circumstances. Father Fahy is looked upon, and I think justly, as a martyr to his desire to bring peace and tranquillity to the district. They say—I am sure they say, and I re-echo the sentiment—"Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice's sake." He has been trying to get justice for his poor people, and for so doing his reward is to be lodged in Galway Gaol. I hope I am not appealing in vain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to look into this matter, and let the better part of his nature prevail in order that there may be a settlement of this case. Father Fahy, I am sure, in order to restore tranquillity, would also give bail, and put aside the conscientious objection that he has to doing so. I would, indeed, have wished that I could have placed before the Committee the extraordinary condition of affairs in this district. There is a one-sided view given here of all that has taken place; but as I cannot tell the whole story I will rest my case here.

I can assure the hon. Member that if there is any case brought before me I will most fully and fairly investigate it; and if the hon. Member has any grounds of complaint against the action of Mr. Blake or any other Crown Solicitor it shall be examined into. But in this particular matter I do not gather that Mr. Blake, the Crown Solicitor, has gone in any way outside his ordinary duties. The cases occurred at different times. As regards the case against the rev. Father Fahy, the complaint was made in the ordinary way for intimidation. The Crown Solicitor conducted the proceedings as he would have conducted the proceedings in any other case, and the order that was made was an order of the Court. As I understand it, the hon. Member does not find fault with the action of the Court. It was not necessary for either the Attorney General or the Crown Solicitor to give any consent to enable Father Fahy to be at once released from prison. The matter is entirely in the hands of the rev. gentleman himself. The Court made an order, in a way that the Government could not control, to the effect that Father Fahy should find sureties for his keeping the peace.

Colonel Waring, the Stipendiary Magistrate, appealed to the parties to have the matter settled amicably.

In a case affecting public law, where a complaint has been made that the law has been broken, the Crown cannot make any arrangement to settle the matter. In the case in question the Crown were obliged to ask the Court to give a decision; and, as I say, I do not understand the hon. Member to find fault with the Court. For myself, I can assure the Committee that no one would be more pleased than I to see the order of the Court obeyed by Father Fahy. He has only to find sureties—to comply with the order of the Court is a mere matter of form—and the reverend gentleman would be at once released. But, so far as I am concerned, and so far as the Government are concerned, we have, officially, no power in the matter. The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, admit that no distinction ought to be made between persons who have received an order of the Court, and that whether they be peasants or landlords, or magistrates or priests, or whatever their position, it is essential that the decision of the Courts of Law should be impartially carried out. When, therefore, Father Fahy refused to obey the order of the Court, the alternative had to be carried out. With regard to the other cases which have been mentioned—that is to say, the Woodford cases generally—the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension as to the power of the Crown Solicitor to make an order. It is for the Court to consider, as a judicial act, whether or not a man is to be admitted to bail. It would be a very strange thing for any Court, with such facts as those in the Woodford cases brought before it, to make an order that the prisoners should be admitted to bail. Such a thing would not be done in England, nor in any other part of Ireland. Of course, we cannot make any distinction between Woodford and any other place. But I would point out that the matter can be brought any day before the Vacation Judge, when affidavits can be made by the persons interested. If such application were made the matter would be discussed in Court, and if a case should be made out for admitting the prisoners to bail, they will, of course, be so admitted; but if it were decided, on principles which govern Courts of Law in these cases, that bail should not be allowed, of course it will not be allowed. As far as I myself am concerned, I will read over the depositions and make myself more fully acquainted with the facts of the cases, and it will then be in my power to instruct counsel to oppose or assent to any application that may be made; but, of course, at present I cannot say what my decision will be, not knowing what action the Court will take.

I think the whole action of the Court in this matter has been extremely unfortunate. How extremely unfortunate it has been may be judged from the fact that the town of Galway was the scene of a serious riot and disturbance last night, owing to further arrests in connection with these Woodford evictions; that the police charged the people with the bayonet; that many were injured, and that one poor woman, I believe, was killed. This is certainly a very gloomy look-out for the winter—it is a very gloomy way of entering upon this trying period which is before us, when we see men and women thus maltreated in disturbances arising out of disputes between landlords and tenants. I am sure the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill), and all hon. Members, will admit that the prospect is anything but re-assuring. The Crown distinctly broke faith with the tenants, because when the evictions took place on account of rents which could not be paid and the tenants resisted and threw boiling water upon the officers of the law, the officer in charge of the police stated that if all resistance of this kind were relinquished no further action would be taken against the tenants.

I wish to appeal to you, Mr. Courtney, as to whether it is in Order for the hon. Member to discuss what the Constabulary at Woodford did on this occasion? We are now dealing with the question of the Law Charges of the Crown, and I am responsible for the Vote before the Committee. The hon. Member, however, is now referring to matters which are not connected with the Vote, and upon which I may not speak.

The rule as to rising to a point of Order would become extremely inconvenient, Mr. Courtney, if right hon. Gentlemen make a practice of rising in their places in order to cut up the sentences of a speaker into halves. I say that the Representatives of the Crown in Galway made a promise to the tenantry who were being evicted which they did not keep, and that puts a complexion upon these cases which, otherwise they would not bear. The men who were brought up charged with this offence were refused bail. They offered to give very solvent bail, but it was refused; and I ask why bail was refused to these tenants in Galway who, under pressure of eviction, in their desperate extremity resorted to violent and foolish measures, no doubt in defence of their homes—I ask why bail was refused to them when it was so freely allowed to the murderers of James Curran in Belfast? There ought to be one rule and one measure of justice for these affairs in Ireland; but I find, unfortunately, that the one rule and measure of justice is this—that where the giving of bail would promote public peace and order bail is refused, and that the sanction of the Crown to the giving of bail is allowed where such bail does not tend to promote public peace and order. What harm would have been done by allowing bail to these tenants? The evictions had been carried out, and the district was no longer disturbed. Bail to the extent of £1,000 was offered, 20 times the amount which was considered sufficient in the case of the murderers of James Curran; but it was refused. In taking this course the Crown Solicitor did not act upon his own responsibility; but upon this matter two stories have been told, one here and one in the Court at Galway. These stories are not only different, but absolutely contradictory, because the Crown Solicitor in Galway said that he acted under instructions—and if he did so act there was no one to instruct him but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland opposite. That was one version; but now we have another from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who says that he did not give instructions to the Crown Solicitor.

I gave the Crown Solicitor instructions to conduct the case in the ordinary way. Nothing beyond that.

Exactly; and the Crown Solicitor stated before the magistrates in Galway that he had instructions to refuse bail. That is the point I am putting here.

I thought at first the hon. Member was referring to the case of Father Fahy. It is true that I instructed the Crown Solicitor of Galway, when the facts of the Woodford evictions were brought before me, that if an application were made for bail, he, on behalf of the Crown, must oppose it.

That was what I was driving at; and if it is not satisfactory, at any rate it puts the debate on a frank footing when we understand that the responsibility lies with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Well, I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain how it is that bail was accepted by the legal subordinate of the Crown in one county of Ireland for the eight men who had been charged and found guilty, so far as a Grand Jury bill could find them guilty, of the murder of James Curran in Belfast—a circumstance which caused a great sensation in the town for months—I ask why bail was allowed to these people and refused to 24 poor tenants who threw hot water on some bailiffs when they came to serve notices of eviction, but who abandoned that course as soon they were warned that such conduct was wrong and would lead to serious consequences? Bail is said to have been refused to these men because one of them pushed a policeman and struck him with a mallet. This individual referred to may have been guilty of such violence; but the Committee should know that he had been rendered desperate by the condition of his wife. The police insisted upon expelling the poor woman from her house, and in the moment she was expelled from the place in which her husband had been endeavouring to keep a roof over her head she was prematurely delivered of a child. [A laugh.] An hon. and gallant Member opposite finds this very ridiculous, no doubt, for he is laughing; but such are the incidents which accompany the administration of the law in Ireland, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have given favourable consideration to the case of this man, who must have been driven to a state of desperation by reason of the condition of his wife. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have released him on bail; but, so far from that being the case, bail was refused and the man was detained in custody. The next incident in the unfortunate sequence of these cases was that regarding Father Fahy. Father Fahy is known to be a clergyman of high character and an advocate of the administration of fair justice as between man and man. He was deeply concerned in the extremity of these poor tenants. He went to see the landlord in order to intercede for them, and the landlord declares that Father Fahy used language of a threatening character to him. The rev. gentleman was ordered to find bail. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the order, as to Father Fahy, was one in the discretion of the Court, and that, having required him to find bail, there was no alternative but to commit him if he refused to give it. But we know perfectly well that in the case of a Court in Ireland the magistrates take the word of command from the representative of the Crown; and all the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to do was to instruct the Crown Solicitor not to press for bail, and his instructions would have been followed. I say that the order of the Court in the case of Father Fahy will have to be cancelled. I found that claim on the language of the presiding magistrate himself. What did he say? Why, he said that Father Fahy had gone to see the landlord solely with the intention of promoting peace and harmony between himself and his tenants. I want to know what is meant by treating a rev. gentleman, whom the presiding magistrate believes to have been solely actuated by a desire to promote peace and harmony between a landlord and his tenants—what is the meaning of convicting the rev. gentleman under a Statute applicable to rogues and vagabonds? What is the meaning of binding this rev. gentleman over to be of good behavour for six months? It would be an affront to any ordinary person of good behaviour; but, in the case of a clergyman, it amounts to an indignity and an insult. Father Fahy assured the magistrates that he had gone to see Mr. Lewis merely for the purpose of promoting peace, and that he had sincerely desired to act as mediator between Mr. Lewis and his tenants, as he had previously done in the case of William and Colonel Daly and their tenants. Here, then, we have the case of a clergyman who had repeatedly acted as mediator between landlords and their tenants, and yet he is sent to gaol for six months because the landlord whom he interviews chooses to declare that violent language has been used by him. The presiding magistrate was of opinion that neither party could remember everything exactly as it occurred, and he was sure that neither of them could repeat verbatim the conversation which had taken place. He (the presiding magistrate) declared that he himself had had altercations with people, and that he knew by experience that it was impossible to remember every word that was spoken at such times. Indeed, he said he would go further, and say that even if such an altercation had occurred between himself and Father Fahy, or any other gentleman, he would never have thought of bringing the matter into Court, and that probably after the whole affair was over they might have been better friends than ever. I submit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, after that strong expression of opinion of the presiding magistrate who sat on the Bench when Father Fahy was ordered to find bail, it was expedient, or reconcilable with common sense, that a course of persecution should be pursued towards this rev. gentleman? Father Fahy has to maintain his character with his flock; he has to maintain his reputation for moderation of conduct and veracity; and after he has publicly declared in Court that he never used such language to-wards Mr. Lewis as that imputed to him, how is it possible that he can give bail for his good behaviour? If Father Fahy consented to give bail, I ask you, Mr. Courtney—I ask the Committee—whether it would not be admitting that the charge against him was well founded, and that his own denial of it was false? I do not know how the rev. gentleman could resume his clerical functions amongst his congregation if he made such an admission as that. Does not every Member of this Committee feel that what Colonel Waring, the presiding magistrate, said from the Bench was the language of good feeling and good sense? The rev. gentleman may have used indiscreet language, being carried away by his interest in the miserable and suffering tenantry; but even if that had been the case, Mr. Lewis would have followed a much more discreet and manly course if he had refrained from invoking the terrors of the law in consequence of observations made to him. I earnestly appeal to the Government now, at the beginning of the winter, to take in reference to this case some action which will tend to allay public feeling. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) is well acquainted with Ireland. During his father's Viceroyalty he had some years' experience of that country, and he must be aware of the position the priesthood occupies in the affections of the Irish people. He must know, from what he has seen of Ireland, that the arrest and imprisonment of a priest, particularly when that arrest and imprisonment are unjust, are calculated more than almost anything else to excite public feeling. After the declaration from the Bench as to the conduct of Father Fahy, I earnestly appeal to the noble Lord to take such steps as may be within the control of the Government to obtain the withdrawal of the rule of bail against the rev. gentleman. As to the other prisoners, now that the eviction campaign has ceased, I appeal to the noble Lord that the most lenient attitude may be taken up in regard to them, and that they may be admitted to bail, as persons accused of murder have been admitted in Belfast and elsewhere. I would appeal to him and to the Government not to pursue a course which, if persisted in, will deprive us of the last shred of hope that during the coming winter we shall avoid an experience of riot, turbulence, and bloodshed.

I deny that, so far as I am concerned, any different action has been taken in the case of the Belfast prisoners to that adopted in the case of the Woodford prisoners. I think he will find, if he investigates the case of James Curran, that I am not responsible for what was done. In every instance which has come under my notice where I have been appealed to to allow application to be made to the magistrates to admit prisoners connected with the Belfast riots to bail, I have refused to consent to bail, with the single exception of the case of policemen committed for trial. I have, in such cases, directed that application to admit to bail should be opposed. My action has been the same on all occasions—I have treated Woodford exactly the same as I should have treated any other part of Ireland. As to Father Fahy's case, whatever the presiding magistrate may have said I know that the Bench of Magistrates, including Colonel Waring, made the order under which the reverend gentleman was arrested. When an order of that kind is made it must be obeyed. The Crown has no dispensing power, neither has the Attorney General; we cannot say that we will enforce the law on one person one day, and that we will not enforce it on another person on another day. Whatever may have been the view taken by certain of the magistrates as to the altercation which took place between Father Fahy and Mr. Lewis, it is evident that in the opinion of the Bench the language of Father Fahy was sufficient to warrant his being put under a rule of bail.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks as though he were entirely unaware of the course of proceeding in these magisterial cases in Ireland; he speaks as though he did not know that the magistrates are largely guided in their decisions by the action and the tone of the Representative of the Castle Authorities. Such, however, is the state of things in Ireland. Now, what are the facts of this case? The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has put them forcibly before the Committee; he has not added to them. The reverend gentleman is accused, so far as I know on the testimony of one man, of using certain language in the course of an altercation, in which it is not denied that hot words were used on both sides. Everyone seems to admit that the reverend gentleman sought this interview with the intention of making peace, and of bringing a dispute between a landlord and his tenants to a termination. We have in evidence before us the kind of reception Father Fahy met with when he arrived at Mr. Lewis's house. It is quite possible, under the circumstances, that he may have lost his temper; but is there anyone here who will say that because a man who goes out with the good intention of making peace between a landlord and his tenants may have used strong language—though, be it observed, Father Fahy strenuously denies having used the language imputed to him—on the testimony of the one man with whom he was quarrelling without corroboration from anyone else he is to be put under an insulting rule of bail, and, in default of finding sureties, is to be sent to gaol for six months? I can quite understand that no one would be more pleased than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland if Father Fahy would give bail; but if I were in Father Fahy's position they might keep me in Galway Gaol for the whole six months, and I would not do it. The Act under which Father Fahy is imprisoned is an obsolete Act, which is specially directed against vagrants, vagabonds, and disturbers of the peace; and, I ask, is all this to be done on the word of one man with whom there has been an altercation? This is so glaring a case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is bound to tell the Committee on what grounds the magistrates made this order, and whether they had corroborative evidence, or whether they had any ground at all for believing that the reverend gentleman used strong language. Mr. Bowler, who was acting on behalf of Father Fahy, stated in open Court that nothing was farther from Father Fahy's intention than to use any language which could in any way cause terror or intimidate Mr. Lewis, and that if any unguarded expressions had escaped from his lips he very much regretted them. Surely any honourable man would have accepted such a statement as that made in open Court; but the Sessional Crown Solicitor, Mr. Blake, who represented Mr. Lewis, interfering, said, with a sneer—"I think this a queer time to make such an apology." As a matter of fact, it was not an apology, but an explanation. Mr. Bowler replied to this by reminding Mr. Blake that Father Fahy had no reason to suppose, until he received the summons, that Mr. Lewis was under any fear whatever, as he (Father Fahy) had never intended to use, or knowingly had used, language to place him under any fear. Colonel Waring again suggested an amicable settlement, evidently desiring to have the case disposed of there and then; but Colonel Waring was not the only magistrate in Court. It is a most outrageous thing that this Sessional Crown Solicitor—who is an agent, and was mixed up in these very evictions—should interfere when a settlement might have been come to. If he had had any sense of decency he would have desired to make peace and to bring this unpleasant incident to an amicable termination. But what does he do? Why, when an arrangement is proposed that would have been satisfactory to Mr. Lewis he interferes and remarks that it is a queer time to apologize. The Attorney General seems to think that there is no way of getting out of the difficulty as to Father Fahy. I do not know what the reverend gentleman will do. He may be anxious to return to his clerical duties, and out of consideration for his clerical character he may wish to separate himself from the other prisoners in the gaol; but I must say, as I have already declared, that if I were in his place I would remain in prison until the end of the committal rather than give the security demanded. If he does adopt that course I must say that the Government will be very sick of Father Fahy before they have done with him. A more stupid and ill-considered act on the part of the Irish Government than this imprisonment of Father Fahy could not be conceived. Even if the statement of Mr. Lewis as to the language used by Father Fahy had been fully corroborated I doubt whether it would have been a wise course, knowing the feeling of the people of Ireland, to have put this priest in prison; but, in any case, they should not have taken that course until they were forced into it. We cannot form any other conclusion from what took place in Court than that pressure was brought to bear upon it by the Representatives of the Government. We all know how that pressure can be brought to bear upon a Court in Ireland; and it is obvious that it was in consequence of this pressure that Father Fahy was sent to Galway Gaol. Now, I contend, in the first place, taking this case altogether apart from the position of the reverend gentleman as a priest, a gross act of injustice has been done. If Father Fahy were the poorest peasant in Galway I should say that it would be most unjust to take the man and commit him to gaol under a rule of bail on the sole evidence of another man with whom he has had an altercation without any corroboration whatever. I say if he were the poorest and lowest man in the country he should have justice done to him. But what are we to say, when it is not the poorest to whom justice is refused, but a man whose sacred calling and whose position in the county all lead to the strong primâ facie presumption that he never did use the language imputed to him, and when that gentleman comes forward, and by the only means open to him—that is to say, through his legal representative—makes what I feel assured every Member of the Committee, when he reads it, will acknowledge is the amplest statement that could possibly be made under the circumstances? I ask hon. Members to consider for a moment the effect of consigning a man in the position of Father Fahy to gaol. I daresay Members of this House have had altercations with other people at various periods of their lives. Well, I ask them to try to realize what their feelings would be if they were brought up in Court by a man who chose to make himself their enemy, and were accused by him with having used language that they never had been guilty of; if they found themselves, men of stainless character, called upon to give bail on uncorroborated evidence, under a long disused Act, under threat of being sent off to prison, and after a public explanation had been offered, what would their feelings be? And the Committee must remember that the position of an Irish priest in his own circle was every bit as high as theirs, and that the insult of calling upon him to find bail under these circumstances was every bit as great to him as it would be to them. I will leave it to hon. Members to judge what the feelings of Father Fahy must be, seeing that he embarked in this matter with the very best intention. There is ample evidence that Father Fahy embarked in the matter with the intention of doing good, and that his advances were not received in the same spirit by the gentleman to whom he addressed himself. No doubt there are strong reasons why Father Fahy should reconsider his position, and should decide upon giving bail. He will have a strong desire to return to his sacred duties; but, on the other hand, it will be most humiliating to a man of his character to follow a course which will practically be a confession of the justice of his sentence. The right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Attorney General for Ireland seems to think that the Government have no powers of remedy. Does he mean to tell us that the Executive are now tied hand and foot, and that Father Fahy will be kept in Galway Gaol for six months for not giving bail? Are we to be told that on the pure statements of Mr. Lewis, uncorroborated by anyone else, this priest is to lie in gaol for six months? A more absurd statement could not be put forward. Everyone knows that the Executive could release Father Fahy tonight if they chose. If they have any common sense in them they will wire immediately to Dublin and order the Castle Authorities to liberate this man at once. [Laughter.] I hear some hon. Gentlemen distinguishing themselves—hon. Gentlemen who always notify their presence during these debates in the same way—by laughing. I tell them, Sir, they will presently find this no laughing matter. It will presently land the Government in serious difficulties; and in the embarrassed and complicated position in which they find themselves at present, and which is likely to be aggravated in the future, I tell them that they will discover that the worst stroke they have done for a long time has been to declare war against the priests. If you want peace and good order in Ireland during the coming winter, which we all know is likely to prove so critical, you should endeavour to get the priests on your side. If all appeals for common justice for the priests of that country are to be met with jeering laughter, I can assure you that you will find yourselves far from securing the sympathies of this powerful class. Gentlemen opposite are far away from the scene; but the Irish landlords are in the midst of it, and to these I would address myself, and these I will assure that unless at this time they make a strong attempt to get the priests on their side they are likely to find in the future that they have made a very great mistake. If you allow it to go forth to the priests that any attempt they may make at bringing about a better state of feeling between the landlords and the peasantry will be rewarded with six months' imprisonment, my advice to them will be to stand aside and let the tenants settle the matter with the landlords; and when that course is followed by the priests the landlords are not likely to enjoy the results. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. I have not touched upon the other question—namely, the admission of the Woodford prisoners to bail, because it has been fully dealt with already. I feel, however, that a gross act of injustice has been done. In the case of Father Fahy I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he is going to allow this priest to remain in gaol for six months? If he is not, the sooner he lets him out of gaol the better. Perhaps he will tell us whether he is going to take steps to release Father Fahy? If he proposes to leave Father Fahy in gaol, I think he is doing a very foolish thing; but the sooner we know definitely what he is going to do the better. So far as I am concerned, I do not know what the rev. gentleman's decision as to giving bail will be; but if I were to offer him advice it would be not to give bail to the extent of a single 1d. under any circumstances.

I want to know what hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway really mean? They seem to imagine that no clergyman has ever been sent to gaol in any other country than Ireland. I see the Lord Advocate for Scotland sitting opposite, and he will bear me out when I say that not long ago a Scottish Presbyterian minister of high character, and much respected by his flock, came into collision with a Court of Justice, was committed to prison, and the Government declined to interfere, and allowed the decision of the Court of Session to stand until one of the parties with drew the difficulty. Then the rev. gentleman was liberated. But when this gentleman was imprisoned all Scotland did not rise in rebellion; Scottish Members did not come down to this House and declare that a terrible Scottish grievance had arisen, and that if this clergyman was not liberated the landlords of Scotland would have a bad time of it. I desire to know whether hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway mean that we are to have in Ireland one law for the priests and another for the peasants? I think it will clear the air if we have an answer to that, and—

I distinctly said nothing of the kind. I said exactly the reverse—that if it were the poorest peasant instead of a priest whose liberty was in question the Government would be bound to take steps to bring about his release.

I ask whether we are to have one law for the priest and another for the peasant? The Act under which Father Fahy has been sent to gaol is said to be an obso- lete Act. As a matter of fact, it is an Act used every day in Ireland. [Mr. DILLON: In Ireland?] Yes; and in England, also, men are sent to gaol in default of finding bail. I happen to know Mr. Lewis, and that is my only reason for intervening this evening. It would be as well that the Committee should know something about the facts of this case. As a matter of fact, a notice was issued by the Lords' Justices previous to these evictions at Woodford, warning the people against assembling thereat. Well, in the church where the rev. Mr. Fahy ministers, the people, on the Sunday preceding the day of the evictions, were advised to set the Proclamation at defiance and attend these evictions. I want the Committee to put themselves in the position of Mr. Lewis in this matter. He is a man who has been—

It is very necessary that this discussion should be confined, as I have already pointed out, to matter affecting the discretion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland and the Crown Solicitor in regard to bail.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, of course. All that I wish to say, since I cannot enter into the merits of the case, is that Mr. Lewis had a great deal to put up with, and a great deal to be afraid of; at least, he thought he had. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has any power to intervene, no one would be more glad than I should be to see the rev. gentleman released; but, at the same time, I desire to say this—that I should not like this Committee or this House to sanction the idea that one law is to be meted out to priests, and another to peasants.

The hon. Member for South Tyrone has stated that he does not wish to see one law for the priest and another for the peasant. I thoroughly agree with him; I think he has laid down very sound doctrine; but I should like to give a case, one-half of which I am thoroughly acquainted with, drawn from the county of Galway, and the other half of which I do not know so much about, drawn from the town of Belfast. With, regard to the Belfast portion of my comparison, I shall speak from statements which were made in this House, which were not contradicted, and which are acknowledged to be facts. I will mention these things to show that there is one law for the clergymen in the North of Ireland, and another for the priests in the South. I know of a case in which a priest was asked to give bail, a case resembling as closely as possible that of Father Fahy. This priest pursued precisely the same course as that adopted by Father Fahy. He consulted with a number of other clergymen as to what he should do, and they arrived at a totally different conclusion to the rev. gentlemen who advised with Father Fahy. They recommended him to give bail. The charge against him was that he had spoken against the Constabulary, and the strongest point alleged against him was that he had called the Constabulary ruffians. ["Order!"] If the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) has any remarks to make in reference to my speech, I hope he will get up in his place and make them.

I ask your ruling, Mr. Courtney, as to whether the hon. and gallant Member is in Order in bringing these matters before the Committee?

I am waiting to hear the particulars from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Perhaps he will say when the events to which he is alluding occurred? If his observations do not relate to something which happened in the course of the current year they are clearly out of Order.

The case I refer to is one in which a rev. gentleman, like Father Fahy, was asked to give bail.

When was it? Give the date.

The case is, I think, about three years' old; but the other case to which I wish to refer is nothing like three years' old, but is quite recent.

Then I think the illustration would not be relevant.

Then I will go to the other case which occurred this year, that of the rev. Dr. Kane, who called the police murderers, and was not bound over to keep the peace. This I make the other part of my illustration. I had desired to quote a case with which I am perfectly familiar, because I was present during the whole of the proceedings; but I am precluded from going into that by your ruling, Sir. I was not preseut when this other incident occurred, therefore I cannot give it on my own authority. It is reported that at a time when Belfast was in a state of great excitement the rev. Dr. Kane spoke of the police as "Morley's murderers," and was not asked to give bail to be of good conduct in the future. I believe that statement is perfectly correct. It was made in this House, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Saunderson) did not contradict it.

Would the hon. and gallant Member be kind enough to give the date when those words were used?

I expressly stated that I could not give the incident on my own authority; but I say it was mentioned in this House without being contradicted. It has been repeatedly mentioned. Unlike the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, I do not quote from anonymous pamphlets. ["Order!"] I will not refer to that matter further. What is this case of Father Fahy? It is notorious that in 1872 the rents were raised in Woodford, for political purposes. The Marquess of Clanricarde, on my Election Petition, himself admitted, on sworn testimony, that rents were raised for that purpose.

I have more than once ruled that the question must be restricted to the discretion of the Crown Officer in the matter of bail. Any of these historical recollections must be beyond that question.

Then I shall have to confine myself to rather a narrow argument, and one which I am not very capable of dealing with, because it is one which goes back into very old historic law. I believe the authority under which the Crown Solicitor claims to be able to bind over this clergyman or anyone else to keep the peace is contained in an Act of Parliament passed in the time of Edward III.—a fossilized law only brought to light some four years ago, dug up, I believe, in my neighbourhood by a Resident Magistrate who was thanked by the Government of the day, who thought a great deal of the discovery. I do not, as I say, feel myself capable of arguing this legal question; but if it be true that the prosecution in the case of Father Fahy had to go back to an Act passed in the time of Edward III., though I do not say that it is beyond the function of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, I still maintain that the course is one which it was not advisable to pursue in the present state of Ireland. I do not know, Mr. Courtney, whether you would consider it within your ruling to allude at all to the circumstances under which this clergyman was bound over to keep the peace, and the details of the offence he is alleged to have committed. I would remind you that the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) spoke for a considerable time on the matter of the Scotch clergyman, and I think that I should be allowed—

I expressly called the hon. Member for South Tyrone to Order for entering into the antecedents of Mr. Lewis and Father Fahy.

He certainly dealt with them for a considerable time—

Order, order!

Well, for some time.

For five minutes.

Well, that is a considerable time, I should think. But I quite accept your ruling, Mr. Courtney. As it is declared to be out of Order to allude to the offence of Father Fahy, I would only point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that unless he is very sure of his law, and unless he can show a better precedent than an Act of Edward III., or even Edward VI., he ought to hesitate very seriously before he decides to allow a clergyman to remain in prison for six months for not giving bail. As this clergyman denied the use of the language in respect of which he was ordered to find bail to keep the peace, I do not see how it could have been possible for him consistently to have agreed to be bound over to keep the peace. Father Fahy has, I think, under the circumstances, taken a proper course by going to prison; but that course throws great responsibility upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. I hope he will be able to show that the ordinary law bears him out for his attitude in the case of Father Fahy, without going to the old Statute of Edward III. It does not matter whether he goes back to Edward VI. or Edward III., so far as I am concerned, as a layman. I certainly think that in so serious a matter as this no action ought to be taken unless it can be based upon some modern law. It may be said that I am out of Order in referring to this point; but, according to The Times account, Father Fahy seems to have been entrapped into the use of strong exclamations. He has denied using the words alleged against him, and I do not say that he did use those words; but, according to The Times account of the matter, Mr. Lewis asked him into his house, and whilst there he made use of some expressions in respect of which Mr. Lewis considered that he should be bound over to keep the peace. That is the account given in the English Times; and it is most extraordinary to find that after a man has asked another into his house to have a conversation with him he should go to the magistrates and say—"In having some conversation with this clergyman hot words were used, and I therefore wish to have the clergyman bound over to keep the peace." Whatever objectionable expressions were used, they were admittedly only used after Mr. Lewis had invited Father Fahy into his house. Why, then, did not Mr. Lewis content himself with asking Father Fahy to leave the house? That is the course I should have taken—that any reasonable man would have adopted. I hope, then, that all these facts will be looked into, and that, if possible, these proceedings, which have resulted in the imprisonment of Father Fahy, will be quashed. I can well believe that a good deal of excitement has been created in the West of Ireland by this legally injudicious proceeding. I say legally, because there has been a revival of a Statute, though an old and obsolete one. But on every other ground—considering the peculiar circumstances of the district, and the peculiar circumstances under which the altercation occurred—that is to say, Mr. Lewis having invited this rev. gentleman to his house—the proceeding is absolutely indefensible. I am very sorry, indeed, that I have been unable to go into the other case to which I alluded, where something similar occurred, because I believe I should have been able to show the Committee the injudicious manner in which the law has been already put in force, and the difference between the application of the law in the North and the West of Ireland. I am also sorry that I have been unable to point out to the Committee some facts which would have shown the circumstances of Woodford to be, at the present moment, different from those of any other part of Ireland, and which would have connected it much more closely than other parts of the country with the agrarian difficulty.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has not said that it is beyond the competency of the Crown in Ireland to retrace the steps of the Law Officers in this matter. Will he state whether it is not competent for the Government of Ireland, in some form or other, to quash the order of the magistrates against Father Fahy? There ought to be some form by which it could be done. I think we should be quite satisfied if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would assure us that the subject should be reconsidered in the Council Chamber. The matter is one very deeply affecting the peace of Ireland; and if the Government wish to enlist the sympathies of the vast majority of the Members on this side of the House, they will at once set about undoing what has been done to Father Fahy. To the presiding magistrate of the Bench before whom this case was heard it was admitted that the evidence amounted to this—that Father Fahy went to Mr. Lewis with the best intention as a peacemaker. It is well known that there are peacemakers and peacemakers in Ireland; and if I stood in need of one, it certainly would not be to the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) that I should appeal to discharge the function. But it is beyond question that Father Fahy's motive was purely that of peacemaking. The hon. Member for South Tyrone will not deny that Mr. Lewis, though a respectable gentleman, is also rather peppery. Well, he invited Father Fahy into his house, and it is very likely that hot words were used, and that the rev gentleman may have been tempted into saying something which he would no have said in cooler moments. On the unsupported testimony of Mr. Lewis Father Fahy was called on to give bail for six months; he declined, holding that if he did so it would be an admis sion of the truth of Mr. Lewis's charge, and as a result was committed to prison. I believe the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, on reflection, will see that the term of imprisonment which this rev. gentleman has before him is far beyond he period of sentence, or amount of punishment, which would be awarded even if one could imagine that the alleged offence had been committed, and leaving out of sight the important circumstance that Father Fahy went to Mr. Lewis with the intention of becoming a peacemaker.

I do not think anyone was very much surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) imputing to Members on these Benches a desire to have one law for the Catholic priest in Ireland and another for the ordinary subjects of the Queen. Sir, such an imputation as that is only to be accounted for by the fact that the hon. Member owes his return to this House largely to the vote of the Orange Society, who are in the habit of insulting the Catholic people and their Representatives. It is precisely because we believe that the treatment received by Father Fahy was treatment such as should not have been given to the humblest person in the country that we protest against it here to-day. We protest not merely because Father Fahy is a priest, but simply because he was treated in a grossly unfair manner; and in appealing to the Government to alter the unfortunate decision which they arrived at in the imprisonment of Father Fahy, we appeal to them not merely on the ground of his being a priest, but simply because the treatment he received was such as would have been unjust to anyone. But, Sir, we appeal more particularly to Her Majesty's Government because Father Fahy is a priest; not because we regard him as anything more on that account, but we appeal to the Government in their own interest because he is a priest. And why? It is a notorious fact that such distressing circumstances as have occurred at Woodford would have been in the past multiplied in number and intensity were it not for the interference of the Catholic priests of the country. I have myself been present at places where evictions have taken place under what the people have considered unjust circumstances, and where large masses of the people have assembled on the scene of eviction. I have seen dozens of cases myself where the people would inevitably have come in contact with the forces of the Crown engaged in the eviction were it not for the interference of the priests, who came to the scene strictly for the purpose of trying to calm the people and prevent riot and bloodshed. And now, Sir, Father Fahy went to the scene of these evictions in Woodford for the purpose of restraining the indignation of the people, and for the purpose of preventing bloodshed, strife, and, perhaps, loss of life; he entered into conversation with the landlord, at whose instigation these evictions were being carried out; and the landlord used very strong language to Father Fahy, who, perhaps, lost his temper, no doubt because his efforts to keep peace were met in a hostile manner by the landlord. The result of this was that the landlord, Mr. Lewis, made an accusation against Father Fahy, and Father Fahy was put into prison. Now, if there had been some good evidence to prove that the Father's language was unjustifiable, and witnesses were forthcoming, there might have been some cause to justify the Crown in keeping him in prison. But there is no proof whatever against Father Fahy, except the solitary evidence given by the landlord himself, who was engaged at the time in conversation, when Father Fahy was alleged to have used this language. The people of the district now find that the word of the landlord has been sufficient with the magistrates to cause the arrest and incarceration of Father Fahy. It is useless for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to attempt to allege in defence of the Crown that the Bench of Magistrates unanimously made out the warrant for the imprisonment of Father Fahy. It is a notorious fact that the Benches of Magistrates in Ireland are landlord partizans to a very great extent—at least, that is the opinion of the people. Well, there is no exception to that rule in the present case, for we find that the landlord went to the magistrates, and upon the word of the landlord the magistrates made out a warrant for the imprisonment of Father Fahy, with the result that he is lying in prison to-day, not because he has committed any crime, for nothing of that sort is alleged against him, nor because there was weighty evidence brought forward. The people where Father Fahy lived, and who respect him, have got the bitter feeling and knowledge in their hearts that the word of a landlord was sufficient to take their priest from their midst and bring him into prison. Now, we say that the action of the Attorney General for Ireland is, to say the least of it, highly injudicious at the present time, when you cannot take up a newspaper in Ireland without reading the word "eviction"—when you cannot take up a newspaper without seeing the record of evictions which have taken place, or an account of evictions to come. It is generally feared upon all sides that during the winter there will be a great number of evictions in Ireland, and the only thing we have to uphold our belief that those evictions will not be altogether so disastrous as we fear they may be is the one hope in the interference of the priests between the exasperated people and the forces of the Crown. I tell this Committee that if it is to go forth that a priest going to the scene of an eviction for the purpose of making peace between the parties and preventing strife—that if it goes forth that a priest on this mission, like Father Fahy, is upon the word of a landlord to be summarily imprisoned, it will not tend in any degree to lessen the danger which is likely to surround evictions in Ireland during the coming winter. It is because of this fact, that the priests have always done their best to keep peace, and have always been determined to exert themselves to that end, that we appeal to the Government to release Father Fahy, so as not to discourage priests in other parts of Ireland from going forth on like missions of peace. Father Fahy was imprisoned merely upon the word of a landlord who was interested in the evictions that were taking place in Woodford. Now, Sir, what is the feeling which is likely to go abroad in Ireland?

I must invite the hon. Member to be less discursive. I have repeatedly indicated what is the point of discussion.

I am addressing the Committee on the imprisonment of Father Fahy, and I am appealing to the Government to reconsider their position in his case. I was going to show what is the feeling in Ireland as an argument why the Government should reconsider their decision. Sir, the feeling with regard to the imprisonment of Father Fahy and the circumstances connected with these Wood-ford evictions is this—that the people will get it into their heads that some persons in high places want to have outrage and crime in Ireland. The people have always known that priests like Father Fahy have, like good angels in these matters, been preventing crime and outrage; and when they see him now cut down in the midst of his attempts to calm the people and prevent crime, there naturally comes into their minds the feeling that the landlords have their friends in high places, and that the Government really want to exasperate the people, and to drive the people into acts which would give some cover for the introduction of repressive measures for Ireland during the coming winter. It is certainly because Father Fahy and priests like him have interfered to keep the peace on these occasions that I appeal to the Government; and I would appeal to them to remember, in the interests of their landlord friends, that the landlords in Ireland would have fared worse had it not been for the interference and intercession of the priests of the country. I know of cases where the people had determined to stand out to the last, and where they would probably have been evicted, and the landlord get no rent, if the priest had not brought about a compromise; and I tell the landlords that it will not be to their interest if they put in prison without reason the priests who have assisted them in collecting their rents. [Laughter.] I notice that a good many hon. Members opposite indulge in laughter at my remarks; but I say this is no laughing matter, and that it is very unbecoming of a Member of this House to treat in this way a matter which I believe the Government themselves will admit to be of the highest importance and seriousness. Now, with regard to the Woodford prisoners, they were not admitted to bail, because the landlord used his influence with the magistrates to prevent it. But in Belfast, where a young man was done to death, and a true bill was brought against nine men for the murder, those men were all admitted to bail in the sum of £50 a-piece. Why do you not in Ireland apply to the West and South what you apply to Belfast? You allowed out on bail of £50 each those men who were concerned in a murder of an inoffensive man, who gave no provocation. But here you allow no bail to men who are led into extreme action, because they were driven from their homes, because their roofs were taken from their houses, and their wives and children were driven out. If the Government continue the course they are upon at present, I can tell them that they have commenced what will be a very bad time for them, and a very bad time for everybody in Ireland. They have in the case of the Woodford evictions acted in the interests of the landlord in refusing bail, simply because the landlord did not want it to be taken, and they have put a priest in prison, because the landlord raised his single voice to bring about that end. If you go on in this way you will exasperate the people. If you do so you will have disorder in Ireland, and that disorder the people of this country, as well as the people of Ireland, will see, from the protests we are now making, does not come from any action of the Nationalist Party, but from the action of the Government, who are always determined to stand by the landlords, and from the action of those hon. Members of this House who ask nothing better than the imprisonment of priests.

I think the Attorney General for Ireland might shorten this discussion, which has certainly diverged somewhat from the point of debate, by removing what I cannot help thinking is a misapprehension with regard to the facts of this case. I think there must be some mistake, and that the facts cannot have been accurately stated to the House. As regards the question of Father Fahy being a priest, I think that ought not to enter into the matter at all. I think he should be dealt with as any other subject of the Crown. As far as my experience goes of putting priests in prison—and I have had some experience—it is that there is a very great difficulty in getting them out again; and that is one great objection to their being imprisoned. But we all agree that the same rule ought to be applied to everybody in similar circumstances. Now the facts of this case, which has only come to my knowledge this afternoon, have been stated by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I understand the hon. Member to say that a person desiring to remove difficulties which have arisen in these evictions went to the house of another person who was a landlord; apparently they did not agree; there was no one present, as I understand, and they had an altercation. Well, one party to the altercation goes before a magistrate and states what the other has done; there is no corroboration whatever, and on that statement proceedings are taken, and the other party to the altercation is shut up. Now, if this can be so, it clearly lies with the first person who gets to the magistrate in cases of this kind to have the other party shut up. It seems to me that the magistrate took a sensible view of the case. He said that when two people quarrel it is very likely that neither of them recollect what has taken place very accurately—at all events, neither of them is likely to give the most favourable view of the case of the other person, or the most accurate account of their own. Now, the extraordinary part of this story is that the magistrate recommended the case to be made up, but that the Crown Solicitor, who I understand—but I cannot help thinking there is some mistake about this—was himself concerned in these evictions, prevented the course being taken which the magistrate recommended. I do not know, but I think there must be some mistake here. Well, he did that under the direct instructions of the Attorney General for Ireland. Here is a Crown Agent and agent for the landlord preventing the magistrate making up the case; where-upon the magistrate gives his decision as to finding bail, and a man is sent to prison. That is the case as stated by the hon. Member for East Mayo. Since the hon. Gentleman spoke I believe the Attorney General for Ireland has said nothing; and therefore, if he would make a statement which would remove the misapprehension which I believe exists, I think it would probably terminate this discussion. I think the case is one in which explanation is required.

When this case was first noticed I did not think it desirable to enter into a discussion of the facts, for the reason that any statement I might make in reference to the facts of the case must necessarily be an ex parte statement. I received certain information from Mr. Lewis, and I gave directions upon the basis of that information to the Crown Solicitor. As to whether the information received be accurate or inaccurate I can say nothing. It was, of course, for the Court to hear the case and decide, and the judgment of the Court was based upon their conclusion as to whether the information brought forward was accurate or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) has asked what were the facts of the case. As far as I am acquainted with them, I shall at once tell the Committee what these circumstances are. If I am rightly informed, there was no altercation between. Mr. Lewis and the Rev. Father Fahy. Mr. Lewis is a gentleman of whom I know nothing beyond what any other Member of the House may know, except one fact which is in the cognizance of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—namely, that in the month of February last an attempt was made to blow up his house, either with dynamite or some other explosive material. It was partly successful; but if it had succeeded entirely his house and family would have been destroyed. It is perfectly true that some time ago Father Fahy came to Mr. Lewis's house—he was not invited to come—and asked Mr. Lewis what he intended to do in the case of one or two tenants. Mr. Lewis gave an explanation which I think would satisfy most reasonable men—namely, that as regarded the holding on which the man was living the rent was paid for it, and he did not wish to dispossess him; but that as regarded another holding, which was subject to a dispute between the father and son, no rent had been paid for it, and he intended to recover possession of it. Upon that Father Fahy got very indignant and excited, and told him that his house would be blown up with dynamite within six months; that he himself would probably be killed; and that he felt it his duty to denounce him from the altar. Upon these facts being brought to my knowledge I did what I think any Attorney General would have done in similar cir- cumstances. I ask whether, under those circumstances, the Attorney General would have any alternative except to direct the Crown Solicitor to take charge of the case, and have Father Fahy brought up before the magistrates, and the matter fully investigated? Accordingly I gave the Crown Solicitor directions to take charge of the case, to put himself in communication with Mr. Lewis, who had given the information, to have a summons issued and heard in the ordinary way before the Court. He did so. I know nothing at all of what occurred between the magistrates and the Crown Solicitor. I gave no directions to the Crown Solicitor, either to withdraw the proceedings or to go on with them. I have no knowledge of what happened, but gave general directions to proceed. I understand that Mr. Lewis proved the facts as I have stated them to the Committee, and that he was not shaken in cross-examination. Under those circumstances the Court, consisting of more than one magistrate—I know not how many—unanimously made the order, and it was impossible for that Court to come to the conclusion of making such an order unless they believed the statement of Mr. Lewis. I ask, assuming that they believed that statement and granted the order, whether it would be proper or right for the Court to say that it was a matter for compromise and settlement? I do not know what the Crown Solicitor said; but if these facts were proved it was quite right for the Crown Solicitor to say—"I will not be a party to any such arrangement; I will leave the Court to judge." I believe that in this case the procedure has been right from first to last, as far as I know, and I need hardly say that it has been taken in the Constitutional way. The Attorney General has nothing whatever to do with the case, which is in the hands of the Court. The order made was merely that Father Fahy should give sureties for good behaviour. If he had given sureties to keep the peace the matter would have been at an end at once and for ever. But he refused to do what the Court ordered him to do. These are the circumstances of the case, and under them there was no option but to do what has been done, and I am of opinion that the course taken was the proper and legitimate course to be pursued.

I have listened with great interest to the statement of the Attorney General, and I observe some inconsistency in his account with what actually occurred in the Court. I know nothing of Father Fahy; I know nothing of the circumstances of the case, except what we read in the public Press. The Attorney General said that Father Fahy approached the landlord in an improper way, and said—"If you do not do so and so, your house will be blown up by dynamite."

I said that I was informed of that, and that I took proper means to deal with the case.

That is an important answer; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say who it was that informed him.

I distinctly said that this information was given me by Mr. Lewis.

Upon the information he had, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says he instructed the Crown Solicitor to press the ease; but it turns out that he proceeded on the mere ipse dixit of Mr. Lewis. When the Court had listened to the case Colonel Waring, the presiding magistrate, after having heard the evidence, expressed the opinion which had been read to the Committee—that was not denied by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—the opinion was that an altercation had occurred between two gentlemen, heated language had passed, neither party could recollect exactly what had passed, and it was doubtful whether the language complained of had been used, and it was a case that ought to be settled. Those were the words of the Resident Magistrate, and now we are told by the Attorney General that the Resident Magistrate had satisfied himself that it was a case to be pressed—he had satisfied himself, he said, that it was a case the Crown Solicitor should take up, and press for judgment, and the Crown Solicitor was instructed and intervened, using all his influence to obtain the infliction of a penalty.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent me; but he is attributing to me something very different to what I said. I expressly stated to the Committee that I gave no instructions to the Crown Solicitor, except to conduct the case in the ordinary way. I expressly stated that I knew nothing of what happened in Court.

If that is so, then the Crown Solicitor exceeded his instructions, for he did not issue the summons and proceed in the ordinary way—he pressed for the judgment of the Court, and brought distinct pressure to bear on the proceedings of the Court. He inter posed and said it was not a fair case for settlement, using that undue authority that attaches to the representative of the Crown in Irish Magisterial Courts. Further, I most distinctly claim to show—and I have the evidence to prove it—that the Crown Solicitor in this case was grossly biased, and displayed his bias. For what occurred? On the previous Thursday, when the prisoners were brought up who are now lying in Galway Prison, the Crown Solicitor refused the application for bail. Mr. Blake used language to which I will call attention, and ask was it language that should have been used considering the state of public feeling? The Chairman was addressed on behalf of the prisoners, and then Mr. Blake made the following speech:

"He was glad to have the opportunity of making some reply to the very injudicious speech on behalf of some of the prisoners. They were told there was a dearth of teachers in the locality; but he was afraid there was no dearth of teachers to instruct the people to resist the fulfilment of their contracts."

"He undertook to say yesterday, before he got his instructions, that he would be instructed to refuse bail, and he was glad to say he had received instructions from Dublin to refuse it."

I will not go into the facts of a case of which I know nothing but what I have heard in Committee. I quite feel the exceeding difficulty of making the Committee any kind of a Court of Appeal on the subject of the decisions of magistrates or Judges, and it would be impossible in English jurisprudence that such a case could arise; but I will appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to make more allowance than I think they do make for hon. Members sitting around Mr. It is clear from the statement of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland—it is clear from the knowledge we have received from listening to hon. Members who have preceded me, that all proceedings of this character are looked upon, rightly or wrongly, as being taken under the direct action of the Crown. If that be so, it cannot be wondered at that the Representatives of men who are thought to be unfairly tried should be inclined to defend them by attacking the representative of the Crown in the House of Commons—it is the only fashion in which they can do so. No suspicion rests upon English justice. I have come, during a rather troubled life, very often into collision with the authorities—[Laughter]—and perhaps hon. Members who laugh at that would not have come off so well; but I have never permitted myself, when a decision has been against me, to suggest that the decision has been tainted with unfairness, however much I may have disagreed with the reasons that governed it. I knew that the Attorney General or Solicitor General, of whatever political side—except so far as human nature is potent with all—did not allow their political feelings to influence them against me, and certainly there was nothing of the kind with the Judges. I have never heard—except on one occasion, when I admit it came from a personage of high authority in the House—I have never heard it suggested that English Judges could act unfairly. I did hear it once while sitting under the Gallery, the only seat I was then allowed to occupy. I heard the noble Lord the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) say a Government could procure any decision it pleased from English Judges. I confess I did not believe that—I say it with all respect—although I have often had decisions given against Mr. But it cannot be wondered at, when a noble Lord in a high position gave utterance to such a sentiment, that Members around should express a similar sentiment in respect to friends of theirs. It is clear that in this case—we have it from the Attorney General for Ireland—that the Crown Solicitor represented the Crown and the landlords at the same time—

That is an entire mistake. The Crown Solicitor represented nobody but the Crown—no one has a right to say he represented anyone else. It has been stated that he was agent for Mr. Lewis; but that must have been stated under an entire misapprehension of the facts.

I have stated that Mr. Blake was agent for certain Galway landlords.

He was not agent for Mr. Lewis.

I am afraid I was rather obtuse in expressing myself. I will make my meaning more clear. Mr. Blake represented the Crown in substance, but he represented the landlords in spirit, when he said he was glad he had received instructions which authorized him to oppose the granting of bail.

The hon. Member is wholly wrong; the allegation does not apply to that case at all, but to a wholly different case.

That shows the excessive inconvenience of having to discuss such cases in the Committee at all. [Cheers.] I am glad to have that recognized, for it is an inconvenience that must continually arise until the administration of justice in Ireland is placed on the same footing as it is in England.

I understand that during my absence the hon. Member for Northampton, who has just addressed the Committee, stated that he, sitting under the Gallery, heard me say that, in my opinion, the Crown could get any decision it wished from English Judges.

That is so.

I can assure the hon. Member he is under an entire mistake, and I give an unqualified denial to the statement.

Perhaps the Committee will allow me to explain. It was a case in which I took some interest, for I was the defendant. Unless my memory quite betrays me, I heard the noble Lord make the remark, and I think the noble Lord objected to the constitution of the Court, and a special meeting of the High Court was held, and the Judges changed in consequence of the complaints of the noble Lord and a Colleague.

I can assure the hon. Member he is completely in error, and I am sure the hon. Member will not find any record of my having given utterance to such an opinion.

I shall be exceedingly glad if my memory has deceived one.

The case is eminently one that calls for the intervention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has over and over again expressed the feeling that it was the duty of the Government rather to ameliorate than to exasperate the unfortunate state of things between landlord and tenant. When the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues had been charged with a desire to stimulate the harsh proceedings of landlords against tenants, he had over and over again, with every appearance of sincerity, disclaimed any such intention. He had now an opportunity of carrying out his promises. Here was a case where intervention on his part would do much to remove exasperation and restore a better state of feeling. Having heard the speech of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) and the speech of the Attorney General for Ireland, I think the Government will be most unwise if they do not act on the advice of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and order the immediate release of Father Fahy. The Chief Secretary for Ireland must know that nothing can make his difficult task in Ireland more difficult than that the impression should get abroad that the law, the Executive, and the landlords are synonymous terms. It is the duty of his high office to stand impartially between one class and the other, and see that equal justice is being done. Can any fair-minded man infer from what he has heard in Committee that the Crown does stand impartially between the classes? In the first place, there is a man filling two positions incompatible in view of the present position in Ireland—a representative of the Crown and a representative of the landlord class. Let the case be considered calmly, as if it were a case between two classes in England, and not in Ireland. What do we constantly hear from Scotch Members? What more frequent complaint is there than that in the painful struggle between crofters and landlords the same man often fills the position of Procurator Fiscal and the private position of landlord's agent? Mr. Blake was the agent of Mr. Lewis. ["No! no!"] I use the word "agent" not in the technical sense of the word; if hon. Members choose to trip me up at every word and interrupt me there will be no chance of a calm consideration of the subject. Mr. Blake was acting for the landlords in these cases against the tenants. Surely everybody knows what that means? Here was a man who acted as law agent for the landlords acting as law agent for the Crown. This position imposed upon Mr. Blake the necessity of more care in the performance of his duty than if he were simply Crown Solicitor, or simply law agent for the landlords. Did he impose upon himself the restrictions of his position? By no means. The short extracts from the account of the proceedings show that he brought into this case, as the representative of the Crown, all the animus and all the passion of a representative of the landlords. That was the best way to bring the law into disrepute, and divorce the sympathies of the people from those who administered the law. Bail has been asked for the prisoners, and can anyone deny that in England or Scotland bail would have been allowed as a matter of course, and without question? Here are tenants bound to the locality by the ties of home, of family, and of farm tenancy, and yet they are not allowed bail, because the Crown Solicitor, who is the representative of the landlords, opposed it; he opposed the granting of bail with a savage glee that was altogether indecorous in his position.

He acted under instructions from the Government.

Surely the noble Lord has heard the language of the Crown Solicitor quoted.

I have heard the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland.

I do not know whether the noble Lord has heard the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), in which he quoted the language of the Crown Solicitor that he expected to receive instructions to refuse bail, and was glad he had received those instructions. I ask the noble Lord, who, with his Colleagues, share the responsibility of Government in Ireland, was it right for their representative to express this savage exultation? This conduct, so unworthy of his position, became much more serious, much more unworthy, when, as the noble Lord says, he acted as the spokesman of the Government. The Attorney General for Ireland, who is a dexterous Nisi Prius advocate, produced a strong impression on the Committee by his statement of the case; but hon. Members should remember the fact that in the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman they had listened to the statement of one of the parties to the case, for in his reply to the hon. Member for East Mayo the right hon. and learned Gentleman had acknowledged that the statement upon which he acted, and which he repeated to the Committee, was the statement of Mr. Lewis, one of the parties in the case.

I have explained that the reason I did not desire to enter into the discussion was that necessarily my information was ex parte.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman began with the statement that his information was ex parte; but he concluded by giving his statement as a triumphant vindication of the action of the Crown Solicitor. He produced an effect upon the Committee that was entirely wrong by saying that the clergyman came to the man, whose house had been previously attacked with dynamite, and threatened him with a repetition of that outrage. In that he attempted to prove too much. If that suggestion had been made in the Court where the case was heard, and if it had been proved, was it credible that the presiding magistrate would have thought it a case for the gentlemen to shake hands, go out of the Court, and forget all about it? Why, if Father Fahy had threatened the plaintiff in this case with being murdered with dynamite, would Colonel Waring, the Resident Magistrate, having heard the whole case, have advised Mr. Lewis and Father Fahy, the threatened and the threatener, to "kiss and be friends," like children after a quarrel? It was evident the magistrate considered the case to be one of the most trivial character. How could the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile this recommendation of Colonel Waring that the gentlemen should go out of Court, shake hands, and forget it, with credence to the grave statement of Mr. Lewis? No; Colonel Waring did not believe Mr. Lewis. He said, very properly, the two gentlemen were very excited and angry, and shouting at the top of their voices, said many angry things, as angry men do. Colonel Waring attached no importance to the statement the Attorney General for Ireland was not ashamed to bring forward to induce the Committee to come to a wrong sense of the position. Though Colonel Waring expressed his opinion, there were landlords on the Bench beside him, and the representative of landlords in the Court appealed to the representatives of landlords on the Bench, and, using all his influence as the representative of the Crown, induced them to overrule the sensible, kindly advice of the Resident Magistrate, and so perpetrated this gross injustice. This is a case for the intervention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland between the magisterial landlords and the representatives of the people; and I am sure the Committee, and the country generally, will be disappointed if many days pass over without an order for the unconditional release of Father Fahy.

There is only one question I should like to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, which, as Law Officer, he can readily answer, and that is under what law was Father Fahy bound over to keep the peace? I have not myself the slightest pretence to legal knowledge; but on the Bench some elementary principles of law have occasionally to be studied or looked into. Up to 1882 there was the ordinary law, the operation of which was pretty much the same in England and Ireland. But in 1882 a great change was made, and then the principle of binding over to keep the peace was extended under an old Statute of Edward III., or, at any rate, a very old Statute. I believe that these very old Statutes were sometimes considered the same as the Common Law. I am not an authority on that point; but I want the Attorney General for Ireland to go over this ground carefully, and explain this matter to the Committee, not simply to parry my question, putting me aside with superior legal knowledge, but carefully to explain under what law Father Fahy was bound over to keep the peace.

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that since speaking I have referred to Hansard, and find that it does not corroborate my own impression of what the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) said on the occasion referred to a few minutes since. I think it is only loyal for me to say this.

In answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), I may just tell him that a magistrate may bind a man in securities for the preservation of the peace under the Common Law. That was a power always exercised and approved. In addition to that, under an Act of Parliament passed a long time ago—[Colonel NOLAN: But when?] In the Reign of Edward III. Under that Statute magistrates may demand sureties for good behaviour. That Statute is not by any means obsolete; it is acted upon in England almost every week.

The Attorney General has not answered my question, under which Statute was Father Fahy bound over? Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman can and will answer that question put in a simple form.

I would not have intervened except to ask for further explanation of the statement as to the action taken upon the ex parte statement of Mr. Lewis. I confess I am amazed, Sir, to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that he thinks it his duty, on the mere statement of one party in a case, to order a State prosecution with all the panoply of the forces of the Crown, and where the case consists, at the outside, of alleged threatening language of one man to another. I think, Sir, that if in England an altercation, such as has been described by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, took place, the parties would be allowed to fight it out for themselves. The man who made such a representation, with, a request for a prosecution by the Crown in England, would be told to issue a summons to the Magistrates' Court or the Police Court, where the case would be summarily decided on its merits, with both the parties standing on equal terms. In Ireland we generally find that, in disputes between landlords and someone else, the Crown Prosecutor mostly intervenes in the interests of the landlords. If anyone attacks the privileged classes, his case is immediately made the subject of a Crown prosecution. I should like to know whether it is usual in England; and I would ask the Attorney General for England to say whether, in such a case as this of Father Fahy's, the Crown would order a prosecution? In Ireland Crown prosecutions are ordered on the smallest provocation. They are ordered on the representation of local magistrates and other individuals who have influence with the Crown; and there is nothing, in my opinion, which tends more to lower the respect for the administration of the law than the interposition of the Crown as prosecutor in in cases of this kind, which will be always found to be in the interests of the landlord class, without having investigated sufficiently the cases before they order prosecutions. In nearly all the cases where the Crown intervenes we find one class pitted against another. I maintain that nothing is more calculated to lower the law, and to bring it into contempt in the eyes of the people, than the partial administration of the law by prosecutions of this kind. On the merits of this case I do not propose to say anything, as they have been dealt with by other speakers; but I do contend that the case illustrates the general proposition I have made. I do not believe there is any similar system in England, nor would such a system be tolerated by public opinion. I believe that here, when people fall out, they are expected to settle their differences between themselves. This case was not such a one as the Crown ought to have intervened in, particularly as they intervened on the mere statement of Mr. Lewis as against that of Father Fahy.

I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to answer me on the point of law. He has declared there are two different branches of the law under which Father Fahy might have been convicted. I press my question, and I maintain we are entitled to the assistance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the point of law; otherwise, what is the use of paying two Law Officers? What do the Attorney General and Solicitor General for Ireland sit here for? I suppose the Attorney General for Ireland does not answer because he is not a responsible Member of the Government. I must, therefore, put my question to a responsible Member of the Government. I will put my question to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but I cannot help being struck by the absurdity of there being two Irish Law Officers, who cannot inform us as to under which of two branches of the law a gentleman has been sent to prison.

In answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman I may say that my own opinion is distinctly this—that the Attorney General for Ireland, as the Representative of the Government, has given the fullest explanation—the fullest statement of this case—that it is in the power of the Government to give. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has answered all the questions put to him in the clearest manner. ["No!"] That is my opinion. I was asked for my opinion, and my opinion is, further, that no Member of the Government would be justified in occupying the time of the Committee further in continuing the discussion.

One point has been raised which I do not completely understand. I wish to know whether, since this trial took place, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has examined the evidence upon which the magistrates acted; and, if he has done so, whether he approves of their action in the matter? As I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman, all he knows about the case as yet he gathered from the preliminary ex parte information that was laid before him, and that it was upon the presumption that this evidence was true that he acted. What this Committee is asked to consider is the action of the magistrates on the evidence which was placed before them. As I understand, the Attorney General for Ireland defends that action; but he has not yet stated to the Committee, in spite of anything the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say, whether he has seen the evidence upon which the magistrates acted, and whether, having seen it, he approves of what they have done. Let me say, however, that upon the statements made on the one side and on the other it is obvious that the magistrates have come to an inex- plicable conclusion. If, as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway say they believe, there was nothing in the case, why did the magistrates compel Father Fahy to give security to be of good behaviour for six months? That I cannot quite understand. If, as the Attorney General for Ireland says, the magistrates believe the evidence laid before them, it is inexplicable to me how, with such a charge laid before them, they, being convinced of the truth of the charge, could have satisfied themselves with such a meagre and unsatisfactory decision as, upon his theory, they have arrived at. I think the Committee has not been put in possession of sufficient information from the Attorney General for Ireland upon this point.

In consequence of the very unsatisfactory answer we have received from the Government I feel it my duty to move the reduction of this Vote by £7,000, the amount of the salaries of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland and his subordinates. We have heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the first duty of the Government is to assert the law. The Government have always claimed that they will have the law carried out so as to bring peace and contentment to the people; but the assertion of the law in this case does not tend to produce peace, but to produce excitement. In this case the right hon. and learned Gentleman not merely receives the information sent to him, as it is sent in other cases, by his subordinates, but he sends down before the trial special instructions. He sends special instructions before the trial that these poor men who had been arrested should not be admitted to bail, but that they should be sent to prison. He now tells us that they can, if they choose, go before one of the Judges of the Queen's Bench. If they are able to make a case before the Queen's Bench, the right hon. and learned Gentleman promises to look further into the matter with a view to ordering the acceptance of bail. Well, now, here he has all the facts already in his possession; he knows exactly what the case is; but what does he invite these poor people to do? They are mostly people holding small plots of land, and he invites them to go to Dublin to an expensive Law Court to assert that they have a right to bail. I contend that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows right well that they have a right to bail; but it will not suit the policy of vengeance that he is carrying out to do them justice. The moment these people were convicted, they were conveyed from the Court as ordinary prisoners—they were handcuffed in pairs, and carried from Loughrea to Galway. It is said that this is not a policy of vengeance; that this is merely an assertion of the law; that this is not exasperating the people; that this is not creating excitement. Now, Sir, I stated, in opening this discussion, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider my proposition I thought Father Fahy would put his own feelings aside, and that he would probably, with a view of restoring peace to the district, give way if the other prisoners were admitted to bail. I may say I am not authorized to make this statement. I do not know whether Father Fahy would do as I say; but I think it is quite possible he would have done so had my suggestion been accepted. But now, in consequence of the reply we have received this evening, I think he would certainly be degrading himself if he gave any such undertaking. I hope he will not; and I believe that before six months are over Dublin Castle will see better than continue to retain this reverend gentleman in gaol. I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the Crown has no authority to intervene in. verdicts by the inferior Courts, but that it is open for the gentleman himself either to give bail or to remain in gaol. I can give the right hon and learned Gentleman an instance where a gentleman was committed to gaol, having refused to give bail under a similar Act. He was committed to gaol for six months. He appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench to be admitted to bail. Judge Lawson refused, and the Lord Lieutenant of the time—I think it was Earl Cowper—four weeks afterwards, on his own motion, without any other proceedings on the part of the prisoner, released the gentleman, because he found it would be better that he should be at liberty; that it was better for the peace of the district and the country that he should be out of gaol. I say it would be better for the peace of the district of Woodford that the Rev. Father Fahy should be unconditionally released, and that, in consequence of the manner in which our statements have been met, I am bound to press the Amendment I have moved to a division. The statement has been made over and over again—I made it at the beginning of the discussion, and it has been repeated since—that Mr. Blake acted in a dual capacity—namely, that of solicitor for Mr. Lewis and solicitor for the Crown. That has been denied. I assert not merely that he has been for years Mr. Lewis's agent in carrying out evictions, but that he has been the main instrument in torturing Mr. Lewis's tenantry, and that this is not the first time, as I should have proved if I had had the opportunity of making my statement this evening, that this man has incessantly tyrannized over the people in South Galway. I beg, Sir, to move that the Vote be reduced by £7,000.

It may not be worth the while of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) or any Member of the Government to refer at further length to this question; but it is worth our while. This is a test case, because it marks a certain line of policy it is the intention of the Government to pursue in Ireland during the next six months. They have got a clergyman in gaol—we do not know how many more clergymen they may have in gaol before Parliament meets again—and we do not know whether they will even stop there, or whether they will not go on and proceed against the Representatives of the people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has said that the Statute of Edward III. has been used every day in England against criminals; but I would like to know how often it is used against parsons of the Established Church, or I should like to know how often it is used against Dissenting clergymen or clergymen of any denomi- nation? The Statute of Edward III., as everyone knows, is a Statute directed against rogues and vagabonds; and clergymen, even in England, do not come under that denomination. There is a further point in connection with this question. The Rev. Mr. Fahy is a man well known in the South of Galway; he is well known as a man who has always been striving for peace and good order; as a man who has always endeavoured to stay the proceedings of landlords, and who has always endeavoured to induce the tenants to come to terms with the landlord party where-ever possible. He has done so recently in a most successful manner in other cases. He approached Mr. Lewis to accomplish the same object, and Mr. Lewis took occasion to pick a quarrel with the Rev. Mr. Fahy, and immediately that quarrel was picked rushed into the police station and swore an information against the Rev. Mr. Fahy for the purpose of getting him bound over to keep the peace. The main point on which this information was based was that the Rev. Mr. Fahy had stated that Mr. Lewis's house might be blown up by dynamite. Well, I believe his house was blown up by dynamite; but for a gentleman who occupies a bad house it is an extremely paying proceeding to blow it up with dynamite. We had a case in the county of Kerry, not long ago, in which Mr. Samuel Hussey blew up his own house and came down on the county and got £1,500 for the purpose of repairing it—it was as good as putting £1,500 into Mr. Hussey's pocket.

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is travelling very wide of the point before the Committee.

And this gentleman, Mr. Lewis, came forward to claim compensation for the injury done to his own house.

Even that is not pertinent to the Amendment before the Committee.

Oh, I will not proceed further with the exploits of Mr. Lewis in regard to the blowing up of his own house; but I will say that every person is aware that the Rev. Mr. Fahy has been during his whole life, during the whole period of his ministry, the agent of peace and good order in the South of Galway, and this gentleman who swore an information against the Rev. Mr. Fahy, could not get even the Resident Magistrate of the district to lend anything like a favourable countenance to the charge Mr. Lewis brought against him. During the whole proceedings in Court, Colonel Waring, who is the Resident Magistrate, kept pressing on this gentleman, Mr. Lewis, to come to terms with the Rev. Mr. Fahy and go out of Court and shake hands and become friends, because the charges on which the proceedings were based were of such a frivolous nature as not to deserve the attention of a Court of Justice. Colonel Waring, the Resident Magistrate, went further, and said if he had been in the position of Mr. Lewis he would never have dreamt of instituting such proceedings. When we find a Resident Magistrate using language of that kind, using such language in a public Court, you may depend upon it the charge brought against the Rev. Mr. Fahy must have been of a trivial nature. There is a further point. The Attorney General for Ireland directed the Crown Prosecutor of the county of Galway to refuse bail; but, in the first place, the Crown Prosecutor for the county of Galway had, on his own authority, decided to refuse bail, and when questioned in Court on this point he stated in explanation he refused bail previously on his own authority; but now he was happy to be supported in his proceedings by the recommendation and advice of the Attorney General for Ireland. Well, Sir, we know very well that if there was a serious charge, that if the charge against the Rev. Mr. Fahy was of a serious nature, the Government would not stop at that, the local magistrates would not be allowed to stop at binding the rev. gentleman over to keep the peace. The local magistrates—who I believe, in the main, have acted upon the request of the Crown Prosecutor—if the charge against the Rev. Mr. Fahy was a genuine charge and not a malicious one, would, you may be perfectly certain, have returned the Rev. Mr. Fahy for trial at the next Assizes. Well, Sir, things would have been quite different if they had taken that turn. I do not think that the rev. gentleman himself would have objected to be returned for trial at the Winter Assizes, for then, at least, he would have had an opportunity of being defended properly by counsel, and tried by a fair jury of Sligo jurymen, though they might be special jurymen. But the whole proceedings of the Government point to one conclusion—that there is a desire on the part of the Government to strike terror into the people of Connaught, to endeavour to bully them in the interest of the landlords into paying rents they cannot pay. That is the kernel of the whole question, and these law proceedings are for the purpose of intimidating these men. A local leader like the Rev. Mr. Fahy is pitched upon because he has always done his duty by the people, and the Government take the first opportunity of hurrying this man off to gaol for six months in lieu of humiliating himself to the extent of giving surety to be of good behaviour, as if any clergyman would consent to so humiliating a process, conscious of his own innocence and uprightness, conscious of the honour and propriety of his own character, as to enter into a bond in a Court of Law to be of good behaviour for six months towards a gentleman like Mr. Lewis, who is well known to be a rowdy and a bully. To ask a peaceful and upright man like the Rev. Mr. Fahy to enter into his recognizances to be of good behaviour towards this man is not justice, but a travesty of justice. I may say the hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. Sheehy) has put his case very moderately, and I shall have extreme pleasure in supporting him if he presses his Amendment to a division.

I was in hopes that this discussion would come to a conclusion very soon. I thought after the considerate, the moderate, and very able manner in which the case was put by my hon. Friends on these Benches, that the Attorney General and the Government would consent to grant the very moderate request that was made to them; but I find I was mistaken. Complaints have been made as to occupying the time of this Committee. I must say for myself that during the debate which has occurred I have limited my observations to the narrowest space. It so happens that I am very well acquainted with most of the parties concerned in these evictions. I know a great deal about Mr. Lewis—and I do not want to say anything disparaging about any man in this House, because assertions of the sort are open to question, and people are often prompted by their prejudices to use language they might not be able to substantiate—he is a small landlord, and both himself and his mother have lived together and have been a great trouble to that part of the country. As regards the tenants against whom actions have been taken on the Clanricarde estate—

Order, order! I have several times stated that it is not pertinent to the Vote before the Committee to enter into all the relations between landlord and tenant. The Question before the Committee is not the action of the Government in respect to the Rev. Mr. Fahy.

The action of the Law Officers of the Crown, Sir, comes within the Question. In one case the rent was £25, and the law costs were laid down at £18. In the case of Patrick Conway, whose rent is £36, the costs were made out at £17 10s. In the case of James—

That is not relevant to the question of criminal prosecutions.

Mr. Courtney, I maintain that, of my own knowledge, Mr. Blake is connected with nearly all the landlords in the county of Galway. He belongs to one of the old families, and he is land agent for several landlords. And if we consider that the law is, as I may say, entirely in the hands of the magistracy of the county and the law officers of the county, and that a close relationship such as I have described exists between them, it is very hard upon the poor people of the district to contend against the forces brought against them. From what I have read of the proceedings at the trial, it does not surprise me to know that Mr. Blake acted in a very partial and one-sided manner. He insisted upon Father Fahy giving bail. It is not only Father Fahy, but the poor people arrested in Woodford and brought before the magistrates, who have been treated in a most cruel manner. I am sorry that the Government do not seem to realize the full importance of this matter, for one of the main causes of crime in county Galway, and I believe in other counties, is the want of confidence in the administration of the law. Our people are very shrewd, and if the law were to be administered in a fair and just manner I have no doubt that a better relationship would exist between the Government and the people, and that very many crimes that have been committed in the county of Galway would never have been committed. But, however, when the people cease to have confidence in the law, when they see the magistracy, the Crown Prosecutors, the County Court Judges, and officers in every department of the law arranged against them; when they see that the law is not a protecting power, or a power which will do justice between man and man, especially between the rich and the poor, but is entirely on the side of the rich, which I am sorry to say it is in the county of Galway, it is not to be wondered at that the people resort to extreme measures. The administration of the law is a very important matter. In the county of Galway, some few years ago, there was a fair amount of confidence in the law; but gradually contentions arose between landlord and tenant. Things have gone from bad to worse, and now, I might say, the people are arrayed on one side and the law and the landlordocracy on the other. I would be glad indeed if the Government could see its way to alter this state of things; and I do not know anything which would tend to this end better than the release of Father Fahy. I also think that if the Attorney General for Ireland and the other Law Officers of the Crown could see their way to allow the poor people of Woodford who are now in prison to be liberated, a better state of things would arise in that part of the country, and we might have a chance of living in a peaceable and orderly manner.

The policy of the Law Officers of the Crown, partly owing to the work they do in the Law Courts and partly to their work in Parliament, is one open to a good deal of question, and the manner in which they are paid is very extraordinary. I see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland receives £1,200 a-year in lieu of patent fees. There are no patent fees taken out in Ireland; but still this payment of £1,200 continues. However, up to this evening I always considered that the advantage of having two Law Officers of the Crown for Ireland was that we should be able to obtain the best possible information upon legal questions. To my astonishment I have been refused that information; failing to get it from the Law Officers of the Crown I appealed to the responsible Leader of the House (Lord Randolph Churchill). I have asked under what branch of the law a clergyman in the county of Galway has been imprisoned, and I have been met with a cool refusal. The right hon. and learned Gentleman refuses to give me the information in the first instance, and he is backed up in his obduracy by the Leader of the House. The conduct of the Attorney General for Ireland in the House tonight has been very extraordinary. I put it down to mere caprice, rather than ignorance of the law. I trust that the Solicitor General for Ireland means to speak upon this subject; if he is not acquainted with the subtleties of Irish law, I am sure the English Law Officers, who are sitting by his side at this moment, will be able to advise him. It is very important to know whether it is under the ordinary Common Law, or whether it is under the Statute of Edward III., that Father Fahy is at the present moment in gaol? I press that point. We know perfectly well that we cannot force an opinion from a Minister of the Crown upon any point. I am very glad that the Attorney General for Ireland has now returned to the House, because, perhaps, the Solicitor General for Ireland might not have liked to give an opinion in the absence of his senior Colleague, which senior Colleague has refused information. The contention of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will save time by making a totally new departure is one I cannot understand. I believe it is a well-established precedent that we may not ask information of any Minister with the exception of the Law Officers, and the information we ask from them must be upon a legal point. I am not certain whether it is under the Common Law, or under the Statute of Edward III., that Father Fahy is imprisoned. I have asked the question several times. I have appealed to the Leader of the House, and have got no satisfaction from him. I do not remember, during the five Parliaments I have sat in the House, that a Committee has ever been similarly treated, and I think I am justified in moving to report Progress. I, therefore, beg to move, Mr. Courtney, that you do report Progress; but I state at the outset that the Motion will be withdrawn if the Attorney General will only give us a satisfactory answer to our question.

Before you put the Question, Mr. Courtney, I should like to ask the Attorney General for Ireland particularly whether the proceedings against Father Fahy have been taken under 34 Edward III. c. 1., or not? If they have not been taken under this Statute, then under what Statute have they been taken? I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find it within his competency to give an answer to my question.

I think it is but reasonable, Mr. Courtney, when we have two Law Officers of the Crown in this House, that we should receive specific and definite answers to questions repeatedly put by us. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) has put his question in the most respectful manner, and yet the Law Officers of the Crown sit silent on the Benches opposite, and refuse to give him an answer. I think it is but fair and reasonable that we should ascertain from the Attorney General for Ireland, or from some other Member of the Government, under what Statute Father Fahy has been committed to gaol; and I respectfully press upon the Government, and particularly upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who knows quite well under what Statute Father Fahy has been committed to gaol, to give us a respectful reply to a question put frequently in the most respectful manner.

The only reason why I have not risen again is that I have given the only reply I can give, not merely once, but twice, and that is this—that the facts proved before the magistrates justified them in putting the rev. gen- tleman under a rule of bail. I have not got the evidence before me; and, therefore, I do not know all the facts. Of course, it is perfectly open to any hon. Member to refer to the record of the charge, in order to ascertain under the provisions of what Statute the charge against Father Fahy has been brought. It is impossible I should know all about the case.

Then, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ascertain the facts?

The present discussion is not relevant to the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. Courtney, I have got an answer from the Attorney General for Ireland. Of course, it is not a very satisfactory one; but it seems to be the best it is in his power to give on the present occasion. I am convinced that it would have saved a great deal of time and bad temper if he had told all this before. I trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make it his business to ascertain under what Statute the charge has been brought, and that he will communicate the information to us as soon as he receives it. Having received the intimation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he does not know the whole of the circumstances of the case, and that he has told us everything it is in his power to tell us, I beg to withdraw the Motion to report Progress.

I think that the conduct of the Government, or of the Law Advisers of the Government, in refusing to accept bail in this case is very disgraceful, and such as no Member on these Benches can help rising to express his indignation at. We had the right hon. and learned Gentleman's subordinate in the county of Galway coolly rising in Court and advising the magistrates to refuse bail, telling them that he was confident that to-morrow it would be found that his action was supported by the Law Officers of the Crown. The action of the Crown Solicitor in Galway shows very plainly the magnificent system of wire-pulling which exists in Ireland in the interest of the landlord class as against the tenantry or poorer class. As I have said, the Crown Solicitor announced in Court that on the following day he would be able to prove that the action he recommended the magistrates to take would be justified by Her Majesty's Government. What happened in Galway is simply a repetition of what happens throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. In all the Irish counties the Government have chosen for their Crown Solicitors little paltry lawyers; men whom they are certain, when the necessity arises, will take the part of the landlord class against that of the humbler classes in Ireland. It is scandalous and monstrous that the Government should back up their Crown Solicitor in the county of Galway in refusing to give bail in the case of a scamp of a man like Mr. Lewis. ["Order, order!"] I do not mean the term in any way offensively, Mr. Courtney, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. It is well known that this Mr. Lewis is a man, like most of his class in Ireland, without character. He does not possess anything which goes to make up what is generally comprised in the word man. It is more than probable that he spent his last half-crown in buying a few pounds of powder or a few pounds of dynamite.

Order, order! The hon. Member must confine his observations to the Question under discussion, which I have frequented indicated to the Committee.

I was just going to say that the conduct of the Government in refusing bail in the case of this clergyman, as against a gentleman of the character and position of Mr. Lewis, is such as no one can justify.

There has been no refusal of bail.

At any rate, whether the Government refused to accept bail or not does not much matter. In this case the Rev. Father Fahy has acted as any Irishman, considering him- self an Irishman, would act. He has elected to go to gaol sooner than accept the ignominious position into which Her Majesty's Government would like to force him. The other prisoners acting by his side have done likewise, and I have no two opinions as to which of the two—the Government or the rev. gentleman and his fellow-prisoners, when they return from gaol—will stand the higher in the estimation of the people of the locality. Do the Government think that by their present action in Galway they are smoothing the way for a peaceful or a quiet time in Ireland during the coming winter? Why, Sir, they are simply driving in the thin edge of the wedge, which will eventually split themselves. This is not the way in which a Government who desired to make matters go along smoothly between landlord and tenant in the different counties of Ireland during the coming winter should proceed. The arrest and casting into gaol of a clergyman of the persuasion to which by far the greater majority of the Irish people belong is certainly not the way by which you will firmly establish law and order in Ireland. I can only say what I, as a Representative of the people of Ireland, consider it my duty to say—that the action of the Government in this matter will rebound upon them, and that they will create, by the big structure which they are raising in Galway, a difficulty which, will overwhelm them before many months go by.

Mr. Courtney, although I was not present here during the earlier part of the evening, matters of this kind are nothing new to Mr. I have had, I should think, as varied an experience as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland himself in the matter of Crown prosecutions. My impression is that there is not on the face of the earth, in any country pretending to the slightest semblance of civilization, such a system of misgovernment in this matter as there is in Ireland. Protest after protest has been made against the manner in which the law is administered, or rather mal-administered, in Ireland. And I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and every conscientious Member of the Government, feels in his heart a repugnance excited by the state of things which has been presented to this Committee this evening. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), whom I see sitting below the Bar at this moment, stated this evening that we want one law for the priest and one law for the peasant in Ireland. Sir, that is not the fact. We do not want one law for the priest and one for the peasant; but we do want one for the landlord, priest, and peasant alike. This is our position; we want that equal law shall be dealt out to priest and peasant and landlord, to squire and labourer, in Ireland. [Ironical cheers.] The hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. W. Russell) cheers. I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. Member; in fact, my complaint against him is that he is more biased by prejudice than by any disposition to act unfairly. I must say I have not had much experience of the hon. Gentleman, but that the experience I have had of him is that in cases in which he has interfered he has acted with a chivalry which does him credit and a generosity which might not be expected from him. It is said of us that we are incessantly talking; our complaint is that you are incessantly silent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was asked a plain question on a matter of fact. ["Oh, oh!"] It was a matter of fact, and a matter of law. It was a matter which was within his cognizance, and I have no hesitation in saying that it was quite competent for him to stand up in his place and give us the answer we desired. What was his action? What was his action, backed up and championed by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer? His action was to give us a blank refusal, to tell us that he would do nothing. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan) asked whether it was under the antediluvian Statute of Edward III., or under any modern Act of Parliament, that this reverend gentleman was convicted. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND: I shook my head."] He shook his head, but we did not know the meaning of it; and after a lot of screwing and drawing and bull-dosing, just like drawing a badger, we found that the meaning of the shake of the head was that there was nothing in the head. The right hon. and learned Gentleman sat down there with an air that would have done credit to a Solomon; but when he rose he was unable to state under what Statute Father Fahy had been treated. Now, what are the real facts? The facts, I say, are disgraceful to the English Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had to admit that he really did not know the whole of the facts of the case. The ugly complexion which we bear before the British public is owing to the fact that we have to ring all the changes in our endeavour to extort from a hostile, silent, and unwilling Government that which they might as a matter of decorum answer us readily and at once. The admission of the right hon. and learned Gentleman throws a lurid light on the proceedings in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that he does not know whether it was under the Statute of Edward III. or under a modern Statute that this prosecution was commenced.

I think I stated that there is no modern Statute on the subject, and that the law upon which these proceedings were based is put into daily force in England as well as in Ireland.

I am afraid the right hon. and learned Gentleman has only got deeper in the mire. The Attorney General for Ireland is a master of technicalities, but he does not appear to be acquainted fully with this matter. The alternatives in this case are the Statute of Edward III. or the Common Law. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer has suggested that we ask these questions with an obstructive object. As a matter of fact, there is real ground for the questions which we have put to the Government. Is it not a notorious fact that the Statute of Edward III. is aimed against rogues and vagabonds, and that under it a vagabond may be kept in gaol until he can find security for his good behaviour? I ask is it as a vagabond that this Irish priest has been treated? That is a reasonable question, and I maintain that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has no right to shake his head and tell us that we have no right to ask such impertinent questions. No, Sir; the fate of a poor Galway priest is nothing to us; we are to concern ourselves with nil the intricacies of the British Constitution. We are not to concern ourselves with what is done in Galway to a priest of the Church to which the large majority of our people belong. Now, Sir, the right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted in this House to-night—he will admit it now again—that it was he who directed the prosecution. Is it reasonable to suppose that when he did this he did not know under what law the proceedings would be taken? Ah, Sir, the right hon. and learned Gentleman positively winces under my statement. He directed the prosecution against the Catholic clergyman. He is paid for doing so. We, the Irish people, are paying him £7,000 a-year for directing prosecutions, while he does not know under what Statute the prosecutions are to take place. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon his peace of mind in the matter. This is a vital question for us, and we have a right to press the question which we have addressed to him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has also stood up in this House and has said that his deputy in the matter had no connection with the landlord. Well, my hon. Friend (Mr. Sheehy) who represents the division has asserted, in this House that the man who is in that part of the country to represent the Attorney General, and the man who is there to represent British law, the continuance of which you want to force on us, is the agent for the landlord in question. The case is not one directly between the landlord and the tenants, but between the landlord and the person who acts as mediator between the landlord and the tenants. Who is this mediator; who stands by the poor tenantry and says a good word for them in their time of trouble; who has stood by them for generations when things looked darker than, thank God, they do now—who but the priest? Father Fahy was asked to walk into his prosecutor's parlour—"Will you walk into my parlour said the spider to the fly?" He walked in; but we have only one ex parte version of what happened there, and that version, according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, was supplied to him, and upon that version he directed the prosecution, and in directing that prosecution he did not tell his deputy that which, seeing that that deputy was a landlord's man himself, he should have been most particular to tell him—namely, which way to proceed in the matter. Which way was he to proceed? Under the Statute of Edward III.? Sir, there is a phrase, which is not Greek, and which would be very well understood in Ireland—namely, "Proceed by the law of lauv laudhir"—that is to say, proceed by the law of the strong hand. Not so long since I myself witnessed one of these extraordinary scenes which so frequently take place in the name of law and order in Ireland. I sat in the Court House whilst the case was proceeding, and saw the Clerk of Petty Sessions who was engaged there, fill up all the committals the day before the case was concluded. I ask all those hon. Members who are listening to me, who know anything about the administration of justice in England, what would be thought of the conduct of the officials in a Court who knew so well what the decision was to be that they made out the committals the day before the case was concluded? This is a matter which I may have to bring up again for the delectation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland later on in the debate. I saw with my own eyes the clerk filling up the committals the day before the prosecution had closed; and. I fancy that is a sample of the proceedings in the case of Father Fahy. I do not wonder that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) is anxious to remain silent, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland is anxious to mislead him. When the sun gets into blazing force there is such a thing as sun-stroke. Well, the truth is rising like the sun; soon it will get into the meridian, and we may expect the legal arrangements of Ireland to suffer from the sun-stroke of truth. This change is coming quickly, and I say to all fair-minded Englishmen who hear me that they will believe my words sooner than they think—they will believe that in Ireland there exists a hideous state of public wrong, a constant miscarriage of justice, and that the whole system will soon be laid bare to the light of day. The administration of law in that country is polluted at its source, that source being the connection which exists between the Government and the landlord system. In the case of the committals of which I have spoken—and in this matter the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot plead non-responsibility, for the incident occurred within the past two months, neither can it be said that I am overstepping the limits of your ruling, Mr. Courtney—the legal farce which was enacted was one of a kind with which we Irish Members are thoroughly familiar. There is no such thing as even justice in Ireland; we behold either a ridiculous and outrageous farce or a dreadful tragedy which affects the lives of innocent men. I have described a legal farce I myself witnessed, the committals being made out long before the end of the case, and everyone connected with the prosecution, from the very policemen up to the highest officials there, knowing what the decision was to be. Application was made on behalf of the prisoners for bail, and the magistrates and all concerned acted their parts so well that the facts seemed to come upon them by surprise. A solemn whisper went round amongst them; they affected to hold a consultation for a moment; they looked round to the representative of the Crown, who said—"Oh, I am not yet in a position to say what is the state of mind of the Attorney General on this matter." I could have told him what the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was. It was either represented figuratively by that calm repose in which he was indulging just now, or else it was represented by that phrase I quoted just now—"Proceed by the law of lauv laudhir; go ahead as you please." The magistrates said they would be most anxious and willing to give bail, but as they did not know the mind of the Attorney General on the matter, they could not do it. All this was in face of the fact that the committals had been made out before my own eyes the day before. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think it worth while to listen to how the law is administered in Ireland? He cannot stand up here and defend the action of his subordinates. ["Order, order!"] An hon. Member cries "Order!" imagine I am the apostle of order. [Laughter] You may laugh. I myself have been the victim of the law in Ireland, and I would appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to ask his subordinates what their opinion of that case was. I say that I and my Friends who approach in this way the purification of the law which creates disorder in Ireland are the real apostles of peace and order in that country, and not you who sit on those Benches opposite and give a silent assent to the statements of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and give an occasional un-Parliamentary growl at the representations which come from this quarter of the House. I want to eradicate the present disorder in Ireland, to take it up by the roots altogether and establish there something like that good order which ought to obtain in every civilized country in the world. Are the magistrates in Ireland who sit on the Bench and are responsible for such a case as this of Father Fahy—but I will not pursue that farther, for I see by your gesture, Sir, that I am getting out of Order. I must confess that I have indulged in these few remarks rather in the heat of the moment in consequence of my recollection of what I have seen take place in a Court of Law, and hon. Members will, therefore, not feel surprised at not having heard from me anything in the nature of a connected essay. If I cut my observations short on this matter, it is not because I do not feel a great deal, or because I have not plenty to say on the matter. I have had a long experience of the maladministration of the law in Ireland, and, notwithstanding the magnificent salaries they receive, I do not envy the position of right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have to champion such gross anomalies and such a gross caricature of law as exists there. Right hon. Gentlemen would be right well advised if they would take that sensible course that evidently was in the mind of the presiding magistrate when he said—"Let this matter drop; do not allow it to go further." The Crown Solicitor should have taken the case no further. But the Government are now responsible for the action of their deputy, who there and then interrupted the harmony of the proceedings. It would have been better for the cause of law and order in the county of Galway if that harmony had not been interrupted at that time. Here we have a priest in gaol. In what position, I ask, is such a man more likely to advance the public peace—in gaol or out of it? There is naturally a strong hostility to priests and to the Church to which they belong, in this country. ["No, no!"] I say yes. Have we not seen it ventilated in the letter which was addressed to the noble Leader of this House a few days ago? It is my duty to speak of facts which I know, and I say this, that the priests in Ireland are a far more useful garrison, so far as the protection of the lives and property of the landlords are concerned, than any number of British soldiers. I declare that exasperation would have reached a much greater height than ever it has had it not been for the salutary and useful influence exerted by the priests as peacemakers in Ireland. It is a common practice in Ireland for us to warn enthusiastic friends of the Government not to venture upon a war against the priests. We tell them that if they do they will come ill out of it. The Government, however, seem only too glad of the opportunity afforded them by the over zeal of this clergyman in his desire to make peace between the members of his flock and the landlords, to make an attack upon the clerical party. Father Fahy, as has been pointed out, desired peace not war. He went to one of the landlords. Is it reasonable to suppose that, his errand being one of peace, he was seized with the desire to excite to crime? Is it likely that if he had intended to excite people to outrage and crime against this man, he would have gone into Mr. Lewis's parlour to tell him so? Is such a theory to be maintained in the light of day? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows anything at all about this case, he is aware of the fact that, when these two gentlemen met, they approached each other courteously, each one raising his hat, and that they then conversed together in regard to these evicted tenantry. The question of the eviction is not immediately before the Committee, but this is before the Committee, that the conversation grew first warm, then hot, and, I suppose, eventually got to a white heat; but, whatever was said in that conversation, it all grew out of the circumstance that the priest went there as a messenger of peace to bring about an amicable arrangement between the landlord and his tenants. I will not indulge in the rather natural suggestion which would come to the lips of most people, and say—"After all, it serves these priests right for endeavouring to throw their protection round the landlords." But that, at any rate, is the lesson the Government seem anxious to convey to the minds of the priests. That is the lesson which the silence of the Government and this shielding of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland will convey to the minds of the people, if, when a man tries to make peace and it is found that his sympathies are in favour of bringing about an amicable settlement between the landlords and the tenants, he is thrust into gaol. The fact is, the Government are maintaining their old policy; they are true to their colours. There can be no doubt that the present Government is "true blue." It is maintaining its ancient reputation; it is carrying the blood-stained flag of old, and this is not the first drip of priests' blood upon it. It is the priest-hunting policy of old, and I say that, in the end, the Government will be ashamed of it, and will have much more reason to regret it than we shall.

I rise to support the demand of my hon. Friend in relation to this matter. I must say that I deprecate, in the very strongest possible terms that I can command, any observation from any individual, even from the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), or from any side of the House, that would accentuate or increase the religious differences and feelings now existing in Ireland, and that would increase ill-feeling between creed and creed, and class and class. It should be the desire of all sides of the House to diminish, rather than to increase, such a state of things. That has been my tendency and practice, and, so far as I know, the tendency and practice of my hon. Friends about Mr. It is their desire, so far as I know at present, to diminish instead of increase such feeling. We desire to live on the best possible terms with our fellow-countrymen. Our lot has been east with them, and we would rather that peace should be maintained between all parties than that a constant state of hostility and warfare should prevail. In the case of Father Fahy, I desire to join my hon. Friends in an appeal to the Treasury Bench— Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

I was saying that I desire to join my hon. Friends on this side of the House in an appeal to the Treasury Bench—which was empty then, though it is full now—to take such steps, as soon as convenient, as will lead to the remission of the sentence under which Father Fahy is now immured in Galway Gaol. I think it is right they should do so. In my opinion, the action of the Crown was in this case arbitrary, unjust, and impolitic. It was arbitrary in allowing the imprisonment of Father Fahy for language alleged to have been used in an altercation. I think that the presiding magistrate, Colonel Waring, who intimated that gentlemen were not likely to remember words they used in the heat of an altercation, and who recommended that an amicable settlement of the difficulty should be arrived at, took up a wise, judicious, and prudent attitude; and I trust that in future we may see a greater number of such magistrates on the Bench in Ireland. If we had had more of them in the past, to give such advice, we should have had much less trouble in that country than we have had. The action of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in ordering a prosecution in such a state of affairs, was arbitrary. I think it was also unjust to pass such a sentence on the reverend gentleman on the testimony of the one man against the testimony of the other. The magistrates found Father Fahy guilty—

Order! The question of the justice of the sentence cannot be considered under this Vote. That has reference to the function of the magistrates.

Well, the result, at any rate, was that the testimony of one gentleman was taken as against that of the other gentleman.

It is not competent for the hon. Gentleman to discuss that matter under the present Vote. It is not relevant to this Vote.

I bow to your decision, Sir. I understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, on the statement of one person, ordered a prosecution, in an ex parte manner, and that he did not hear the statement of the defendant. Under the circumstances I think I may fairly say that the action of the Government was partial and one-sided, and, if so, I maintain that it was unjust, and, further, that it was impolitic. I deplore for the peace of the country that this action has been taken, and this reverend gentleman has been imprisoned. I think that instead of doing good it is calculated to do a considerable amount of harm. It came out in evidence—or, at least, whether it was in evidence or not, I think the prosecution was based on the statement—that the reverend gentleman threatened Mr. Lewis, in the course of their altercation, that unless his (Father Fahy's) view of the case were taken, the house of the other would be blown up with dynamite. I think that such a statement as that would be discreditable, and I do not think it likely that any gentleman or any man would make it to another, much less is it likely that a clergyman, or a person in the position of Father Fahy, would do so.