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.
Last update: 11
December 2009