The Parnell Commission was a judicial inquiry in
the late 1880s into allegations of crimes by Irish parliamentarian Charles Stewart
Parnell which resulted in his vindication.
On 6 May 1882 two leading members of the British Government in Ireland,
Chief Secretary for Ireland Lord Frederick Cavendish and the Permanent
Under-Secretary for Ireland T.H. Burke were stabbed to death in Phoenix Park,
Dublin by the Irish National Invincibles (Phoenix
Park Murders). In March 1887, The Times published a series of articles, "Parnellism and Crime", in which Home Rule League
leaders were accused of being involved in murder and outrage during the land
war. The Times produced a number of facsimile letters, allegedly bearing
Parnell’s signature and in one of the letters Parnell had excused and condoned
the murder of T.H. Burke in the Phoenix Park. In particular the newspaper had
paid £1,780 for a letter supposedly written by Parnell to Patrick Egan, a Fenian activist, that included: "Though I regret the
accident of Lord F Cavendish's death I cannot refuse to admit that Burke got no
more than his deserts" and was signed "Yours very truly, Charles S.
Parnell". On the day it was published (18 April 1887), Parnell described
the letter in the House of Commons as "a villainous and barefaced
forgery." Also on 18 April the Perpetual Crimes Act had its second reading
and debate in the Commons. It appeared to nationalists that it was more than
coincidental that the Times article on the letter was published on the same
day, and was obviously intended to sway the debate.
Ref: The National Archives, Kew, England
1888 CRIMINAL - LIST OF CRIMINAL CASES,
INCLUDING EXTRADITION CASES: TRACEY, Thomas COURT: - OFFENCE: Brought from
Ireland to English Prison to give evidence before Parnell Commission HO 144/222/A49553B
The following are some of the exchanges in the House of Commons (HC) on
the involvement of Thomas Tracy. It would seem that there was a conspiracy, by
The Times and the government, to get him to testify against Mr. J. F. O'Brien, Member for South Mayo, and Father O'Malley, P.P. Father John O’Malley, was a member of the
Land League, who encouraged protesters at Boycott’s home and told his servants
and farm workers to leave.
THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.HC Deb
01 March 1889 vol 333 cc710-7
MR. MATTHEWS I will
answer the Question of the hon. Member for North Longford and that of the hon.
Member for South Down at the same time. Mullett and Nally were not visited by Head Constable Preston. They were
brought over from Ireland under order of the Special Commission for the purpose
of giving evidence. A prisoner named Tracy is in Millbank.
His offence was making use of threatening language, and his sentence was to
find bail to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for 12 months, or in default
to be imprisoned for that time. The removal of Tracy took place, I understand,
under similar circumstances to that of Mullett and Nally. He was accompanied by a prison warder, who still
remains here. He has been twice visited by Mr. Preston, in pursuance of a
request of Mr. Soames. The purpose of the application
to visit was not stated. These visits were allowed in accordance with the
ordinary rules. I am not aware of any limit of time during which a prisoner may
be detained if his presence is required by the Court.
IRELAND—THE PRISONER TRACY.HC Deb 04 March 1889 vol 333 cc829-31 829
§ MR. M'CARTAN
(Down, S.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether
he will state under what order of a Court of Law Thomas Tracy was removed from
Belfast Gaol to Millbank Prison, where he still
remains; for what purpose Tracy was previously removed from Castlebar
to Belfast Gaol; when, and on what charge, Tracy was convicted, and what
sentence was passed upon him; whether, during his imprisonment in Belfast, he
was daily supplied with dinners of the first quality, and also with beer or
porter, and by whom same were supplied; whether the Freeman's Journal was sent
him daily from a local police barrack; whether County Inspector Heard, and
District Inspector Gibbons, or any other officer of police, paid several visits
to him there, and saw him without the presence of a warder; whether he is aware
that Tracy alleges these officers of police promised him his liberty if he 830
would swear against an Irish Nationalist Member of Parliament, and a certain
priest in connection with a murder in the West of Ireland; whether, on his
refusal to swear what he knew to be false, Tracy was threatened with
imprisonment for life; whether Head Constable Preston, or any other constable,
told Tracy on his way to Belfast that he was wanted as a witness for the
Parnell Commission, gave him money, and said that he would be visited in
Belfast Gaol by gentlemen, who would tell him what he was wanted to swear; and
whether, under the circumstances, he will grant an independent inquiry into
these serious charges made by Tracy?
§ THE CHIEF
SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E. 1. I am informed that
the man referred to was brought over to England under an order from the Special
Commission Court. 2. While this man was in Castlebar
Prison it was publicly announced in a local Roman Catholic Chapel that he had
turned informer, and there was also reliable information that he was being
tampered with to prevent him from giving information. He was accordingly
removed to Belfast. 3. He was committed to prison for 12 months on the 16th of
August, 1888, in default of finding sureties to be of good behaviour, for
having made use of threatening language towards one Patrick Connors. 4 and 5. I understand that he was treated like other bail
prisoners. 6. County Inspector Head did not visit this man, but he was visited
by County Inspector Milling and District Inspector Gibbons, both in Castlebar and Belfast Prisons, in consequence of the man's
having previously disclosed important information with reference to serious
crimes, which it was the duty of these officers to investigate. No warder was
present.
§ MR. SEXTON
(Belfast, W.) How did it happen that the solicitor to this man several times
applied to the Irish Prisons Board to be allowed to see him and was refused,
and is it true that access has been permitted to certain police officers
transferred by the Government to the service of the Times? I also wish to know
whether, in view of the grave allegations contained in the Question of my hon.
Friend that this man was promised his liberty by certain police 831 officers if
he would swear against an Irish Nationalist Member; that he was wanted as a
witness for the Parnell Commission, and that he would be visited by a gentleman
who would tell him what he was wanted to swear, and that on his refusal to
swear he was threatened with imprisonment for life; the Chief Secretary will be
content to allow the allegations to rest upon the denial of the persons
incriminated?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I believe these allegations to be untrue, but as the man is to appear before
the Special Commission an opportunity will be afforded of ascertaining all the
facts.
§ MR. SEXTON Will the
right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say why the solicitor to the prisoner
was refused admission to him, while free admission was given to the Times
emissary?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I am not aware that such was the fact. There is no suggestion of the kind in
the Question.
§ MR. M'CARTAN The
right hon. Gentleman did not answer paragraphs four and five of my question,
namely, whether during Tracy's imprisonment in Belfast he was daily supplied
with dinners of the first quality and also with beer or porter; by whom the
same were supplied; and whether the Freeman's Journal was sent to him daily
from a local police barracks?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I did answer he right hon. Gentleman. I stated hat I
understood from the report of the Prisons Board that the prisoner was treated
like all other bail-prisoners.
IRELAND—THOMAS TRACY.HC Deb 05 March 1889 vol 333 cc966-8 966
§ MR. M'CARTAN I wish to ask
the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the treatment
of the bail prisoner Tracy, recently removed from Belfast to Mill-bank Prison,
whether he can now say if the prison authorities supply dinners of joint,
dessert, and beer or porter, to bail prisoners in Ireland; and, if not, whether
such dinners were supplied at the expense of the proprietor of the Times to
Tracy during his imprisonment at Belfast, or by whom these dinners were
supplied to him there; whether he will state by whom the Freeman's Journal,
containing reports of the proceedings at the Special Commission, was supplied
to Tracy daily at Belfast Gaol; and, whether the Prisons Board, while 967
allowing him to be visited by officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary to get
up evidence for the Special Commission, without the presence of a warder,
refused to grant such visits to the solicitors acting for him, and who at his
request made application to be allowed similar visits?
THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.HC Deb 08 March 1889 vol 333 cc1277-85
MR. SEXTON In reference to
the statement just made that while Tracy was in Castlebar
he was publicly denounced in the Roman Catholic Chapel, as he had turned
informer, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been
drawn to a letter of the Rev. Patrick Lyons, P.P., of Castlebar,
who is Chaplain of the prison, in which he states:— I
feel it my imperative duty to give that statement an emphatic and unqualified
contradiction. It is utterly and absolutely untrue that Tracy's name was
mentioned either directly or indirectly, under any circumstances whatsoever,
either in the Prison Chapel or the Parish Church at Castlebar.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he now withdraws the statement.
MR. M'CARTAN I beg to ask the
Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Times
witness Tracy, who was removed some months ago from Belfast Gaol to Millbank, whether he can state on what grounds the Irish
Prisons Board refused the application made on his behalf to have an interview
with his solicitor without the presence of a warder, though officers of the
Constabulary were allowed to visit him alone; whether he is aware that Tracy
alleges that County Inspector Melling and District
Inspector Gibbons, during their private interview with him at Belfast Gaol,
wanted him to swear against the honourable Member for South Mayo and Father
O'Malley, P.P., The Neale, county Mayo, in connection with a conspiracy to
murder, and that Tracy was then threatened with continued imprisonment when he
refused to swear against either of these gentlemen, on the ground that such an
oath would be absolutely false; whether Head Constable Preston, on the occasion
of his last visit to Tracy at Millbank, further
pressed him to consent to swear against these two gentlemen, and promised him
1285 his liberty if he would attend the Special Commission and swear
accordingly; whether Tracy, having again refused to swear falsely as required,
was told by Preston that be would not be called as a
witness; whether these officers of police were the only persons who held
communication with Tracy on behalf of the Times; and, whether, considering the
serious nature of the allegations made by Tracy as to threats and promises of
reward held out to him by the police officers who visited him at Belfast, in
the event of his refusing or consenting to swear as instructed at the Special
Commission, he will grant an independent inquiry into all the circumstances in
connection with these visits, and as to the communications made to him by the
police at and since his removal from Castlebar Gaol?
THE PRISONER TRACY.HC Deb 14 March 1889 vol 333 cc1649-50 1649
§ MR. SEXTON I beg to ask the
Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the
statement that the prisoner Tracy, when in Castlebar
Gaol, was denounced as an informer in the local Roman Catholic church, whether
he is aware that there is but one Catholic church in the town of Castlebar, and that the parish priest, the Rev. Patrick
Lyons, who is also chaplain to the prison, has declared the statement in question
to be wholly untrue, and has challenged proof of it; whether, in consequence of
the course pursued by him in regard to the public statement of Father Lyons,
the reverend gentleman has indicated his intention of resigning the chaplaincy
of Castlebar Prison; and whether, in view of
subsequent information, he is now prepared to make any further statement on the
subject?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR My
statement was that it was publicly announced in a local Roman Catholic chapel
that the prisoner Tracy had turned informer. The chapel alluded to was Cappaduff, which is one of the localities in which there is
evidence of the man having been actively engaged in the commission of crime.
VOTE ON ACCOUNT.HC Deb 21
March 1889 vol 334 cc415-89
...MR. A. J. BALFOUR ... The right hon. Gentleman has asked about the
action of Head Constable Preston with reference to Tracy. The right hon.
Gentleman does not appear to have fully grasped the fact, which I have myself
stated more than once in this House, that the whole investigation with regard
to Tracy had no reference to the Times case, but had reference to information
which Tracy himself volunteered to the police in the first instance. Tracy
subsequently refused to complete his information; but, even in its imperfect
form, I hope it may enable the Government to get at the root of some very
serious crimes in the West of Ireland. Tracy is a man who I believe has been
implicated in a large number of the most shocking and criminal operations that
have occurred in that part of the country. He volunteered, for reasons of his
own, to give information to the police; that information he would not complete,
having been restrained probably by illegitimate influences, and in visiting him
Head Constable Preston was only fulfilling what was unquestionably his duty, to
get to the bottom of these dark transactions. I am informed that this had no
reference to the case of the Times, but was simply an investigation carried on
by Preston for the detection of crime. It is perfectly true—and I do not deny
it—that an investigation into crime in Ireland may have great relevancy to the
inquiry by the Commission...
... I said that, no doubt, it was secret crime in which Tracy was
involved, and that, like other secret crime, it had a bearing on the Commission.
But the primary object was an inquiry under a section of the Crimea Act.
MR. HARRIS (Galway, E.) The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has
referred to the man Tracy in an insinuating manner. Well, if he had any charge
to make against the man, or if there was anything behind what he was saying,
the proper course for him to have pursued was to have put his facts before the
House like a man. I do not know that anyone has ever been worse treated by the
Irish Office than I myself, with regard to papers seized in my house. I was subpœnaed to produce certain papers, and I had not got
them, as they had been destroyed. Many of them were of no value, and even these
that were of value were not my property, but the property of persons who had
corresponded with me, so I thought it my duty to destroy them. But the
Government did not destroy the copies they had, and as soon as the Special
Commission was opened they were produced for the use of the Times' lawyers...
... With regard to the case of the man Tracy, the
Chief Secretary says this man was visited by Head Constable Preston in Millbank Prison on a letter from Mr. Soames,
and he gives as the reason for this visit that Tracey had been concerned in
most serious and abominable crimes in Ireland. Now, if Tracy had been concerned
in such crimes, why was he not tried for them? The Chief Secretary is probably
under the idea that the man Tracy is in Millbank
under sentence. Nothing of the kind; be could walk
out of prison to-morrow were he so minded. The fact is that he is there of his
own free will, and is kept there, in lavender, by the police, fed by them, and
supplied with luxuries by them. Let us see what are the facts.
What is the abominable crime Tracy has committed? Will the House believe that
Tracy has been for months and months in prison in Ireland, at first in Sligo,
and then in Belfast, where there was ample opportunity for the Irish Government
to send Head Constable Preston to him, and finally in Millbank?
And for what has he been in gaol all this time? He is in gaol because he
refuses to find a £5 bail to be of good behaviour. And why was be called on to
find a £5 bail? He was never brought before any Court, and never sentenced. If
he were, I challenge the records of that Court. I challenge the production of
the summons to which he appeared, and the sentence to which he was subjected.
He was brought before one of the Resident Magistrates in a police barrack in
secret, a pretended trial was gone through, and the man was committed to gaol
with his own connivance, the imaginary £5 bail having been put upon him so that
the police might have him under their thumbs at the time they might want his
evidence, he being in the meantime supported in luxury, as far as a gaol
affords luxury, in the matter of food, reading, and so on. That is the case of
the man Tracy. What, then, becomes of the Chief Secretary's suggestion that
Preston visited him in Millbank because his bosom was
the repository of the darkest secrets of Irish crime? What ground is there for
the suggestion that any attempt has been made to tamper with Tracy on the part
of the Irish Members? Who was to tamper with him? Was he not under the
Government lock and key? Nobody can get access to a prison except Shannon and Pigott—I beg pardon—and Mr. Soames.
Who was it that was tampering with Tracy? I submit we are entitled to
information on that point. For my part, I never heard of Tracy until about a
month ago, and then I heard this man was placed under a pretended bail of £5,
in secret, in a police barrack—the law providing that such cases should not be
heard except in Petty Sessions, when the ordinary magistrates are able to sit.
The Government raise up a tribunal when they want one just as a jury-mast is
raised on board ship, and after a pretended trial and an imaginary bail, the
man, in connivance with the Government, goes to prison. This man, I presume, is
really an informer. I know nothing of him, except that I believe him to be as
arrant a rascal as ever breathed, who has drawn money from the Times and is trying
to draw money from us—which be
will not get, as we are not such fools as Mr. Soames.
That is the story of the man Tracy, and I ask what becomes of the charge that
he was being tampered with by us; and what becomes of the suggestion that he
was visited by Preston for some purpose connected with the detection of Irish
crime? What, then, was Head Constable Preston doing in London? He was here for months, and you will to-night be voting his salary for doing
duty for the Times...
MR. A. J. BALFOUR...Then, Sir, the hon. Member was very
indignant about the action taken with regard to Tracy,
and said he had never heard of him. That is very likely. But Tracy was a man
who had been well known to the police for a long time. I do not mean to
insinuate by that that he was a man who ought to have been known to the hon.
Member, but what I meant to point out is, that Tracy has been engaged, as the
Government know from many sources, in the commission of serious and organized
crime in the West of Ireland. I repeat what I have stated before, that Tracy
volunteered information in Ireland to the police on the subject of crime to
which he had been a party, implicating also other persons. Soon after that he
was denounced in the neighbourhood of the prison in which he was confined as an
informer. Thereupon he was removed to Belfast, and the police attempted to
obtain a fuller confession from him. He was removed at the suit of the Times to London, but it was in pursuit of
the inquiry begun at the instance of Tracey himself that Head Constable Preston
acted as he did. That appears to be a clear and lucid statement. As I
understand, there would have been no harm in Preston's visiting Tracey on
behalf of the Times, But, as a matter of fact, Preston
did not visit him on behalf of the Times, or for the purpose of forwarding the Times' case, but for the purpose of making further
investigation into the important matters with regard to which Tracy had already
given partial information. I admit, of course, that the permission to make the
visit was given on the application of Mr. Soames. Not
only has the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary stated that in this House,
but I have stated it myself also.
MR. T. M. HEALY Will the right hon. Gentleman tells us what Tracy was in
gaol for? And for how long?
MR. BALFOUR I believe he was in prison in default of finding bail in
connection with a charge of intimidation and threatening life.
Ref:
HO 144/222/A49553B
This file was originally catalogued under more than one subject heading. These headings and details of this file, are as follows:
CRIMINAL.: Prisoners brought from Ireland to English Prisons to give evidence before the Parnell Commission;
CRIMINAL: DALY, John; COURT: -; OFFENCE: Brought from Ireland to English Prison to Give Evidence Before Parnell Commission; SENTENCE: -;
CRIMINAL: DELANY, Patrick; COURT: -; OFFENCE: Brought from Ireland to English Prison to Give Evidence Before Parnell Commission; SENTENCE: -;
CRIMINAL: HARRINGTON, Edward; COURT: -; OFFENCE: Brought from Ireland to English Prison to give evidence before Parnell Commission; SENTENCE: -;
CRIMINAL: MULLETT, James; OFFENCE: Brought from Ireland to English Prison to give evidence before Parnell Commission;
CRIMINAL: NALLY, Patrick W.; OFFENCE: Brought from Ireland to English Prison to give evidence before Parnell Commission;
CRIMINAL: O'BRIEN, William; OFFENCE: Brought from Ireland to English Prison to give evidence before Parnell Commission;
CRIMINAL: TRACEY, Thomas; COURT: -; OFFENCE: Brought from Ireland to English Prison to give evidence before Parnell Commission; SENTENCE: -.
Date: 1888-1889
Former reference in its original department: A49553B
Last update: 17
May 2024