§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,587, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending
651
on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the Vote contained an item of £829 for the salary of the Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He believed that that office was now vacant, and that Mr. E. G. Jenkinson, who had up to this time held the office of Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, had now been appointed to the post of Assistant Under Secretary. Now, the post of Private Secretary was a very important one, and he wished to impress upon the Government the necessity of making a judicious selection of the person who was to succeed Mr. Jenkinson. The Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was not, strictly speaking, a public official; but he was the medium of communication between the Lord Lieutenant, who was the head of the Irish Executive, and the Irish Members and others who were interested in the proper administration of affairs in Ireland. He believed that the gentleman who had been appointed Assistant Under Secretary had derived his experience and had had an opportunity of exhibiting his valuable qualities in a sphere far removed from Ireland. Mr. Jenkinson was employed for a considerable time in the Public Service of India; and it had been stated that day in the House that he had distinguished himself while in India in a manner which was highly questionable. He hoped the Government, in filling up the office of Private Secretary—rendered vacant by the promotion of Mr. Jenkinson—would duly appreciate the importance of selecting a suitable person for the post. He thought the person appointed should be one personally acquainted with the affairs of Ireland, and who had not in his past conduct exhibited any bias as between different classes in Ireland. He should be a man whose public life, as far as possible, had not brought him in conflict with any of the proceedings which had recently occurred in Ireland. He himself (Mr. Sexton), and he believed the majority of the Irish people, would be very glad to see a person of that kind appointed. There was another matter connected with this Vote to which he desired to call attention. He did not object to the office of Ulster King-at- 652 Arms; but he found that the expenses connected with that office amounted to nearly £1,200 a-year, whereas the receipts from the office did not reach one-half that amount. He did not under-value at all, he hardly liked to say the utility, of the Ulster King-at-Arms, because he dared say that the proceedings of that gentleman were interesting to those who were concerned in such relics as armorial bearings; but he was not aware that the office had any practical relation to the welfare of the country, or the general interests of the people. He had no wish to destroy all the interesting relics of the past, but he should like to see those interesting relics paying for themselves; and if the office of Ulster King-at-Arms was confined to the exercise of functions which only concerned a limited class of society, that class was well able to pay for the luxuries they enjoyed, and he was of opinion that the salary and expense involved in the Vote should be drawn wholly from that class, so that the fees should pay the annual expenses of the office. There certainly ought not to be any charge upon the public. He should like to hear from the hon. Member for Athlone (Sir John Ennis), or from the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Gill), whether they could inform the Committee of any useful functions performed by this official, with so high-sounding a title? He hoped the Government would be able to give the Committee some satisfactory assurance that the annual out-goings in respect of the office would be so arranged that the returns from those who were interested in armorial bearings would be large enough to pay the annual expenses of the establishment.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member had been rather deceived by the notice which had appeared in the public papers as to the position which Mr. Jenkinson had held in the Lord Lieutenant's Household. It was scarcely correct to say that Mr. Jenkinson had filled the post of Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. Mr. Jenkinson was living with the Lord Lieutenant rather in the capacity of a private friend than that of an Irish official. Indeed, he thought he was correct—he was almost certain that he was correct—when he said that Mr. Jenkinson was not in the receipt of any public money at all. The Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant 653 was Mr. Courtney Boyle, a gentleman who had been transferred for that purpose from the Local Government Department in England. Mr. Courtney Boyle had for several years been pretty closely connected with the administration of Irish affairs. He did not think it necessary on this occasion to say anything more with regard to Mr. Jenkinson, except this—that since he had said the few words he did in the House earlier in the evening—words which naturally came from his own general knowledge of India, and his intimacy with persons who were well acquainted with Mr. Jenkinson's career—he had had an opportunity of reading a record of Mr. Jenkinson's services, and that record certainly bore out every word he had said; and he was glad to be able to add that Mr. Jenkinson's connection with the Indian Mutiny and the outbreak at Benares was a connection which only redounded to his very great credit. The part Mr. Jenkinson took in that year simply consisted in the most strenuous exertions to save the lives of his fellow-countrymen. With regard to the Ulster King-at-Arms, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) said that the charges ought to be paid by that portion of the public who followed the elegant and recondite pursuits with which the time of that officer was taken up. But it might almost be said that the wishes of the hon. Gentleman were fulfilled, because he (Mr.Trevelyan) found on examination that the Ulster King-at-Arms received in fees from the public considerably more than an average of £1,000 a-year, which sum was paid into the Treasury, in addition to which there was paid over for Stamp Duty on the instruments in which the Ulster King-at-Arms dealt a sum of between £300 and £400 a-year; so that the salary and expense of the office were more than paid by the general public, who had the advantage of the services of this officer.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought the Ulster King-at-Arms ought to be very well pleased at the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. With regard to the gentleman who filled that office, he was a very intelligent and highly popular gentleman, and he did not think that anybody would dream of getting rid of him. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had had relations with him in one capacity some years ago, and 654 he had found him a most courteous and obliging official. But he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of not employing the Ulster King-at-Arms in future in the installation of Knights of St. Patrick, inasmuch as those Knights were alway chosen from a class which exhibited hostility to the people of Ireland. He did not know whether he would be in Order or not in raising the question of the action of the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the Prevention of Crime Bill under this Vote? The reason he asked the question was this. He did not hold the Chief Secretary for Ireland personally responsible for the manner in which that Act was being carried out; and, as he did not hold the right hon. Gentleman personally responsible, he did not wish to raise the question on the Vote connected with the Office of the Irish Chief Secretary.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member would be irregular in raising a question connected with the Executive duties of the Chief Secretary on a Vote which applied to the salaries of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought that he would be in Order if he were to move the omission of the salary of the Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who might be considered partly responsible for the action of his Chief.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he thought that he had laid down a rule on the same point either last year or the year before. The question which the hon. Member proposed to raise would come under the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office, and not under that of the Lord Lieutenant's Household.
§ COLONEL NOLANrose to a point of Order. Part of the Private Secretary's work was to give effect to the directions of the Lord Lieutenant; and he was of opinion that they might fairly raise this question upon the Vote for payment of the salary of the Private Secretary.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must repeat that the proper course would be to raise the discussion for the Vote on the Chief Secretary's Office, and not upon the Vote for the Lord Lieutenant's Household. The Chief Secretary was a Parliamentary official responsible to the House for his acts.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, that was, undoubtedly, the case last year. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. 655 Forster), who then filled the Office of Chief Secretary, was a Cabinet Minister and a responsible official, and the Lord Lieutenant was not a Cabinet Minister. But now they had a Chief Secretary who—although a very capable and valuable officer—did not hold the same rank, because he was not a Member of the Cabinet, whereas the present Lord Lieutenant was.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had explained to the hon. Member that the question must be raised upon the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office. Surely the Chief Secretary was a more responsible official than the Private Secretary.
§ MR. CALLANproposed to reduce the Vote by the sum of £788, the salary of the chaplain of Dublin Castle. If his memory served him rightly, all State religion had now been abolished in Ireland for a period of 12 years; and he did not see why it was necessary to retain the services of the chaplain of Dublin Castle. He could not see what such an officer would really have to do, and he might be a person who paraded about the country vilifying the character of the Irish people on all possible occasions, and with all the impress of a Castle authority. He did not know what was meant by a chaplain to Dublin Castle. He had often heard of a chaplain to Her Majesty the Queen; but he had never heard of a chaplain to Windsor Castle, which was merely a building. It would be better, if there was 'to be a chaplain at all, that he should be chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant; and if there was to be a chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant, he did not see why every other Member of the Government should not have a chaplain also. Why should there not be a chaplain to the Home Secretary? He thought the Home Secretary just as important a person as the Lord Lieutenant; but, at the same time, he believed the Committee would strongly object to vote a salary of £700 a-year for a chaplain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. On the same ground, he (Mr. Callan) objected to this Vote for a chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant. He presumed that as the salary was for the chaplain to the Castle of Dublin instead of the Lord Lieutenant, in the event of the Lord Lieutenant being a Presbyterian, the chaplain of the Established Church of Ireland—although 656 that Church had been abolished—would still retain his salary as Dean of the Chapel Royal. He should be glad to learn whether there was any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to abolish this sinecure office, or to continue it?
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £6,000. He should like to abolish the Office of Lord Lieutenant altogether. As a general rule, he abstained from passing any censure upon the expenditure connected with the Lord Lieutenant's Household, because that expenditure was for the advantage of the Dublin shopkeepers. At the same time, he very much objected to the present arrangement in connection with the Office of the Lord Lieutenant; not that he objected to Lord Spencer, who was in every way an estimable Nobleman; but he objected to the Office being altogether beyond the control of the Irish people and the Irish Representatives. Most of the Irish people had no means of access to him. It was a central power of ruling Ireland from the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and it was a system of centralization which he very strongly objected to. With regard to the Office of Chief Secretary, he did not think they had ever had a more efficient Chief Secretary, or one who was more ready to listen to the representations of the Irish Members. But, at the same time, he could not conceal the fact that the Lord Lieutenant was a Member of the Cabinet, and the Chief Secretary merely a subordinate officer. That fact totally changed the position of affairs, and practically put all questions connected with the Administration of Ireland in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. There was a sum of £20,000 a-year charged upon the Consolidated Fund for the salary of the Lord Lieutenant. That salary the House of Commons could not touch; but there were items included in the present Estimate for the Lord Lieutenant's Aide-de-Camp, the Steward of his Household, his Private Secretary, and soon, and he thought that, instead of attacking those appointments, the best plan would be to get rid of them altogether. He, therefore, moved the reduction of the Vote by £6,000, and if he obtained any support he would certainly divide the Committee against the present system.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,587, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Colonel Nolan.)
§ COLONEL NOLANpointed out that he had moved the reduction of the Vote by a sum of £6,000, and not £2,000.
§ COLONEL NOLANapologized to the Chair for having forgotten that this was only a Vote to complete the sum necessary for the Household. He thought, however, that the practice of passing Votes on Account, before the Committee had an opportunity of discussing such Votes, was highly objectionable. Of course, under the circumstances, he would only move the reduction of the Vote by £2,000.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was glad to support his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) in bringing forward this question, because it afforded a convenient way of enabling the Irish Members to state their objections to the Viceregal institution in Ireland. He imagined that if the House of Commons reduced the Household the Lord Lieutenant would not remain very long in Dublin Castle. He thought there was nothing more injurious to Ireland than the continuance of the Office of Lord Lieutenant. A great deal might be said for the splendour and ceremony of a Royal Court; but for the mock splendour and ceremony of a sham Court he did not think anything could be said. The whole history of the Irish Viceroyalty illustrated the fact that when they got an able and capable man to relieve the dull monotony of the list of Viceroys, he was never allowed to confer any real benefit on Ireland, his advice being rejected and rendered of no account by the Government and by the influences which surrounded him. He had the honour not long since of meeting an amiable Nobleman who was then going over to fill the post of Viceroy in Ireland, and the Nobleman in question asked him what be thought was the right sort of thing for a Lord Lieutenant to do in Ireland? He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) 658 told him, with candour, that the best thing a Viceroy could do was to be civil and friendly with everybody, to offend nobody, and otherwise to do nothing in particular. He thought, on the whole, that that was good advice. He had no doubt that the estimable Nobleman to whom he referred would have followed that advice, and would gladly have done nothing, but he had a Chief Secretary who did a great many things; and, therefore, the result of the advice which he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) volunteered was not in the end very successful. They had had in Ireland two or three great and good Viceroys; but very few who had endeavoured to govern Ireland in accordance with Irish ideas. Lord Chesterfield did so attempt to govern the country; but not the smallest attention was ever paid in England to any word of counsel that came from him. Again, Lord Fitzwilliain was a most earnest and capable Viceroy, and he pointed out to the Government at home that it was impossible to rule the country without Catholic Emancipation. Then, when everybody thought that Catholic Emancipation was on the point of being gained, Lord Fitzwilliam was recalled for his impertinence in having tendered such advice. These were almost the only men who, in the monotonous history of Irish Lord Lieutenants, ever did anything worthy of note. Anyone looking over the historical personages who had figured in the Viceregal Office found himself in the position of a visitor to the Gallery of Holyrood Palace, in Scotland, inspecting the portraits of the ancient Scottish Kings, all of which seemed to have been painted after one model by one artist, or, rather, one contractor. There was once a Lord Lieutenant in Dublin who was popular amongst certain classes, and who had, moreover, a most charming way of conveying the ceremonial kiss, which was believed to be the common privilege of all Viceroys at Dublin Castle. This Nobleman was a pleasant and gracious personage—perhaps the most popular Viceroy Ireland ever had—and the grace with which he imparted the ceremonial kiss gave it a paternal tenderness which dispelled alarm, while it yet retained warmth enough to cause an agreeable flutter. Then they had another Viceroy who distinguished himself chiefly by bribing the editor of an infamous and 659 obscene publication to write down the patriots of 1848. Since Lord Fitzwilliam's time these were the only two Viceroys who had made any mark, or who had left any historical record. In the meantime, while the Viceroyalty did no decided good, it had done a good deal of negative harm. It had created in Dublin a vulgar striving after social distinction; and the Castle fever had made Dublin, among certain classes, the capital of flunkeyism and snobbishness. He remembered being in Dublin some years ago, when there came to him a well-dressed youth, who talked with an air of languor about a ball at the Castle which he had just attended. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) asked him how he had enjoyed himself, and the languid youth replied that the people there were all shopkeepers, and shopkeepers' wives and daughters, and if that sort of thing went on much longer he would have to cut the Castle altogether. Now, who was this aristocratic personage who looked down with such contempt upon Castle entertainments and the Dublin shopkeepers? He was the son of the worthy woman who kept the hotel at which he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was staying. He had only related the anecdote to illustrate the kind of snobbish feeling which this sham Court and this mock Sovereign engendered in Dublin society. If there was a Viceroy who desired to do anything for the people of Ireland he was not allowed to do it. If they had a strong man as Viceroy, they had generally an incapable man as Chief Secretary; and if, as in the present instance, they had a capable Chief Secretary, then—of course, he did not refer to Earl Spencer—they had generally a Viceroy who was altogether incapable of doing good in the Office he held. Political virtues, as an institution, the Viceroyalty had none; political vices it had many; and these political vices were fast growing into national grievances. Most sincerely he wished to see the institution abolished altogether; and he thought the Irish Members would best mark their contempt for it, and the strong objection they entertained towards it, by voting in favour of the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan).
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he regretted that Her Majesty's Government persisted in maintaining this unnecessary expendi- 660 ture, which amounted, probably, to some £60,000 or £70,000 a-year, in spite of the protests of the Irish Members. But, seeing that they did take that course, he could only look upon the expenditure for the establishment of the Lord Lieutenant as being kept up for purposes of corruption. It was used in order to draw away the shopkeepers and others of Dublin, by some petty form of custom or dealing, from all sympathy with National movements, and also to corrupt the aristocracy by keeping up the semblance of Royal dignity. He was afraid that, so long as the claims of Ireland to consideration depended upon this £20,000 a-year paid to the Lord Lieutenant, all their desire to obtain a separate and distinct nationality would be passed over. The people always looked forward to the time when they would be able to assert a distinct nationality for their country; but, so far, every feeling of nationality which existed in that country had been blotted out by corrupt means of this nature. So long as the aristocracy of Ireland were in the habit of leaving their own country, and so long as foreigners were appointed to administer their affairs, there would not be much chance of the people of Ireland securing their nationality. He was strongly in favour of the abolition of the Office of Lord Lieutenant. He believed that the retention of the Office had scarcely got a friend in Ireland; and he was somewhat astonished that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—who, like all his Predecessors in that Office, was at all times anxious to keep a tight hold of the public purse—did not see the matter in the same light. When the Irish Members asked the House for some portion of the money annually wrung from the country in order that they might construct piers and harbours, they were invariably told that they could not have it; and yet they were required to expend some £20,000 or £30,000 in maintaining the Viceroy and his Household, together with other considerable sums of money for Kings-at-Arms and Pursuivants. He asked the Committee why they did not abolish these meaningless pieces of tomfoolery? At present they had a Lord Lieutenant receiving this large salary, and yet all his servants and assistants were paid by the State—expenses which other people had to pay out of their own pockets. If a Viceroy required a sur- 661 geon, why should the State be called upon to pay the cost? Why should not the Lord Lieutenant—that high functionary with £20,000 a-year—pay his own doctor's bills, like other people, out of his own pocket? High as his position was, the Viceroy was not above taking £100 to pay his doctor, and even £30 for his office cleaner. The country had been paying these items year after year, and it was not a matter of surprise that the Irish Members should be so constantly complaining of the expense. He remembered reading in The Times that England was a sort of milch cow which Ireland was always milking; but he wished England would leave the Irish people to themselves to manage their own taxation and their own expenditure, and then it would be seen how little they would ask from England. He strongly protested against this system of keeping up useless offices. There were included in this Vote the salaries of a Private Secretary, an Under Secretary, a Steward of the Household, a Comptroller of the Household, a Master of the Horse, a Dean and Chaplain of the Chapel Royal, down to the humble individual who swept out the offices. Surely, if the Lord Lieutenant wanted his office cleaned, he should pay for it out of his own pocket, without abstracting the cost out of the public purse. These Royal personages, or, at any rate, Viceregal personages, were very lofty and dignified individuals; but, nevertheless, they all of them wished to have a pull at the money bags of the State. Even the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland himself, John Poyntz, Earl Spencer, was not above getting £30 a-year from the State to pay for having his office cleaned. He verily believed that if the Viceroy had the whole of Ireland for an estate, he would still want to have the Isle of Man for a kitchen-garden. Year after year the Irish Members were endeavouring to din into the ears of Englishmen the fact that they did not require a Lord Lieutenant at all—neither himself individually, nor any of his officers.
§ MR. BLAKEsaid, he did not agree with the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway for the reduction of this Vote. Although, if the question of the abolition of the Viceroyalty were brought forward in that House, he might be prepared to vote for its abolition, yet, as long as the Office existed, he was in 662 favour of its being properly maintained. His hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), with the ability which always characterized his speeches, had given them some details which tended to show that the Viceregal Court sometimes deserved the appellation of "a sham Court;" but he thought that was the very reason why, for the sake of the national credit of Ireland, as long as the Viceroyalty existed, it should be maintained in a becoming manner. Now, with regard to the items to which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had alluded—for the Surgeon to the Household £100, and office cleaner £30—he thought, for such an office as that of the Viceroyalty in Ireland, these sums were not extravagant, and that there was no occasion for seeking to pull down anything in these directions. Allusion had been made in the course of the discussion upon this Vote to Earl Spencer. He believed he was correct in saying that, during the time that Nobleman had filled the Office of Viceroy, he had spent considerably more than the Viceregal salary, and certainly there never was a Viceroy who maintained the dignities, hospitalities, and charities of the Office more completely than Earl Spencer; and, therefore, he respectfully asked his hon. and gallant Friend not to make the occasion of his Viceroyalty the opportunity for seeking to reduce the Vote for the maintenance of the Office by the sum of £2,000. He thought when the time, which he believed was not far distant, arrived for raising the whole question as to the desirability of maintaining the Office of Viceroy of Ireland, it would be quite soon enough to give a decisive vote; and he was altogether opposed to anticipating it upon the paltry matters now brought forward.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he could not approve the object of the Mover of this reduction of the Vote, and still less did he approve the reason given in support of it. He regarded the reason given by the hon. and gallant Member opposite as a most unhappy one. He said he made this Motion for the reduction of the Vote for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant as a protest against the Office being occupied by a Cabinet Minister. He had every respect for the occupant of the Office of Chief Secretary, and fully estimated his good-will towards Ireland, 663 as well as his capacity for carrying out his instructions for the benefit of the country. But he looked upon Earl Spencer as being a much stronger man for carrying out the policy which, he hoped, would be inaugurated by the present Chief Secretary. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) said that the Members of the House of Commons were under this great disadvantage, that they could not approach the Lord Lieutenant as a Cabinet Minister, although they could approach the Chief Secretary. He had had some experience of Earl Spencer as Lord Lieutenant, and also of a number of Chief Secretaries; and he asked what Member endued with common sense would not prefer to wait upon Earl Spencer, with all his natural courtesy and kindness of disposition, rather than stand five minutes in the company of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland? Earl Spencer would give you kindly reasons; but if one went to the late Chief Secretary he would be met with nothing but gruffness. For his own part, he certainly preferred to deal with Earl Spencer as Cabinet Minister and Viceroy of Ireland, much more than all the Chief Secretaries he had ever met, with the exception of one—the late Conservative Chief Secretary, who, as he had always found him, was straightforward and above-board. Now, with regard to the Office of Lord Lieutenant, if hon. Members wished to abolish it, let them bring forward a Motion with that object, and take the sense of the House upon it. The whole subject could then be dealt with in an exhaustive discussion; but he thought it was most misleading to use a Motion for the reduction of the Vote as a means of expressing the opinions of hon. Members upon the question of abolition. Although he thought the Lord Lieutenancy should be abolished, he should support the Vote, if it were only to show that he anticipated some good from the present occupant of the Office.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 111: Majority 102.—(Div. List, No. 311.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. BIGGAR, said, he wished to draw attention to the fact that when he opposed the Vote for Queen's Plates for 664 Scotland, and divided the Committee against them, he said he should also divide against the Vote for Queen's Plates for Ireland. He was convinced that horse-racing in any country did an enormous amount of mischief; and he believed he should not be fulfilling his duty if he omitted to do anything in his power to discourage the vicious conduct on the part of the inhabitants of Dublin, which was caused by the sums of money given for Queen's Plates at the Curragh. His objection was not confined to the Plates at the Curragh; he held the same opinion with regard to Queen's Plates in whatever part of the country they were given—namely, that they were mischievous and ought to be discontinued. For these reasons, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,562.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,025, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed. A good deal more money was given in England for Queen's Plates than went either to Ireland or Scotland.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, at present the Queen's Plates were distributed in Ireland by wholly irresponsible parties, who, it was believed, really arranged which horse was to win. There was a complaint that too many of the Plates were run for at the Curragh, and it was said they ought to be more fairly distributed. He thought that some attention should be paid to the manner of their distribution, and that the system should be revised, because men of all classes in Ireland with whom he had spoken on the subject felt that the Plates were distributed upon conditions which had at this day become obsolete.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he was ready to believe that his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan knew a great deal about many matters charged for in the Estimates, although he doubted whether he knew anything about horse-racing. He was not prepared to vote for the abolition of the Queen's Plates in Ireland; but, as there seemed to be some objec- 665 tion to the number of Plates at the Curragh, he suggested that the Estimates of next year should contain a statement showing where the Plates were run for.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, about seven years ago a suggestion was made to the Chief Secretary for Ireland that, instead of giving £100 at a number of small races in various parts of the country, the whole of the money expended should be divided into two sums of, say, £750, and run for at two places only. It was believed that this would bring out a better class of horses. The reason why the suggestion, which appeared to him a reasonable one, fell through was, as he understood, because the authorities at the Curragh were disposed to keep all the money there. He trusted the Chief Secretary would see that in future these gentlemen did not have their way entirely in this matter, and that he would take into consideration the suggestion made seven years ago, when the question was fully discussed in the House. He was astonished that the hon. Member for Cavan should oppose these Plates so strongly, because he had been told that the county in Ireland which was most inclined to racing, and produced the greatest number of jockeys, was that which the hon. Member himself represented.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he was not quite able to follow the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Patrick O'Brien), who said it was desirable to cut the amount given for Queen's Plates into two parts, and then to give one of the two halves to each of the four Provinces of Ireland. It appeared to him that the proposal of the hon. Baronet would be very difficult to carry out. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) said the money was distributed by irresponsible parties, and that matters relating to the races run were so arranged that it was known beforehand which horse was going to win. If that were the practice, he could not regard it as at all conducive to good morals; and, therefore, the statement of the hon. Member amounted to an argument in favour of his Motion. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had expressed the opinion that he knew nothing about horse-racing. However that might be, he had read and heard a great deal about it and its mischievous effects; and, notwithstanding the argu- 666 ments against his Motion, he felt it his duty to go to a division upon it.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he wished to correct an error into which the hon. Member for Cavan had fallen. He had said that the money should be divided between two races to be held every year in Ireland, and that these races should alternate so far as regarded the Provinces in which they were held.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 102: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 312.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £26,106, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the Vote just put from the Chair, including, as it did, an amount of public money required for the emoluments and establishment of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, afforded Irish Members a recognized and Constitutional opportunity for criticizing the general administration of the country. It would be obvious that if they were to avail themselves of the occasion now Constitutionally offered to a legitimate extent, the questions brought forward would extend over a very wide range indeed; and, therefore, for his own part, he had intended to limit himself to a consideration of the way in which some portions of an Act which passed through Parliament some three weeks ago had been administered. He referred to the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act. He would have been under the necessity of referring at length to the administration of what was called the Coercion Act of last year, were it not that at an earlier stage of the evening he had called attention to certain matters in connection with it; and he was bound to say that the reply given to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had inspired him with such hope that he did not think it necessary to allude any further to the administration of that Act. 667 He confessed that had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) still occupied the position of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, he should have felt himself, on the present occasion, compelled to trouble the Committee with much fuller remarks than he now intended to make. The very absence of that right hon. Gentleman limited the necessity of the occasion. He need not say that in the observations he was about to address to the Committee, he intended no personal reference to the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. Moreover, he intended to confine himself to the question of the powers of the Lord Lieutenant himself, and the manner in which he had exercised those powers; but before doing so he would refer to some things which had occurred within the last two or three days. In the first place, he must express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the case of the poor woman who was sent to prison at Waterford last Friday on a charge of interfering with the business of a butter merchant. Upon this subject the right hon. Gentleman had given him an answer altogether opposed to the facts. This was a case respecting a hard-working and respectable woman, against whose character nothing had been alleged, who, as he had said before, was thrown into prison charged with interfering with the business of a person who dealt in butter; the magistrate was appealed to for an adjournment of the case in order that she might produce witnesses; but he refused, and put forward, as the reason for refusing her most natural request, that he had travelled 60 miles in order to hear the case, and could not consent to the adjournment in consequence. Her father occupied a piece of land which he had reclaimed from desert, and the woman herself had been able to hold it by selling milk in the market; but she found herself, in the bad times, unable to pay her rent, although, if she had had a little time, she could have done so. The landlord, however, because she was one day behindhand, turned her out of the farm and let it to another person. He (Mr. Sexton) said it was not to be wondered at if, under these circumstances, she lost her temper and used language which brought her within the law. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not 668 confine himself to the strictly legal view of a case like this; but that he would take into consideration the grievous circumstances of this poor woman who had been refused an opportunity of engaging counsel and bringing witnesses into Court. With regard to the general question of the administration of this particular Act, he had noticed that some of the members of the Police Force had, during the last three weeks, behaved in the most indiscreet and wanton manner in putting the Act into operation. In one case there were three men who were going to pay their rent, and these men, to get a light for their pipes, went under the shade of a hedge to avoid the wind. Having done so, and lit their pipes, they were arrested and brought before the magistrates. Then there was the case of an Irish-American who was arrested simply because he came to revisit his native land; and, finally, he would refer to the case of the three young girls who were now lying in gaol, suffering 14 days' imprisonment, under circumstances which had already been described. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see the necessity of moderating the unjust and hard conduct of the police on such occasions as these. But the real purpose he had in view was to speak of the manner in which the Act had been used since it became law. It received the Royal Assent on the 12th of last month, and two hours after midnight on the succeeding day there appeared a special issue of The Dublin Gazette, containing two proclamations from the Lord Lieutenant, bearing his name at the top, and at the bottom the names of the Master of the Bolls and another lawyer who appeared to constitute, at the time, the advising body of the Lord Lieutenant. These proclamations at once swept 15 counties of Ireland within the net of the Coercion Act. Coupling together these two facts—the extent of country brought suddenly within the operation of this most stringent law, and the limited time taken by the Lord Lieutenant to consider the matter, and to ascertain what was the condition of each particular county, and what special provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act referred to them severally, he thought he was entitled to say that the method pursued had not been dictated by the necessities of the case; but by that slavery to the dominant will of the Tory 669 Party which first appeared in that House, and had since exhibited itself in the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. But from this general proclamation of the country the Province of Ulster was excluded, although he had heard from time to time in that House descriptions of districts in that Province which, had he been disposed, as he was entitled, to make a comparison between those districts and the districts proclaimed, would not have resulted to the advantage of the Province in question. The exclusion of the Province of Ulster appeared to him to be a step dictated by political feeling, and not by the necessities of the case. Besides Ulster there were three or four counties on the Eastern seaboard of Ireland that were entirely excluded from the Act; but, with the exception of Ulster and this limited strip on the Coast, the whole of Ireland was exposed, by a single issue of The Dublin Gazette, to the operation of the Coercion Act. It seemed to him that the proclamation, with such undue haste on the part of the Lord Lieutenant, was conclusive proof of a desire to get a reputation for energy, and not of a desire to do strict justice. The Committee should understand that the Act was, with regard to its provisions, largely automatic. Except in the case of four of its clauses it applied to every county in Ireland. But with regard to them, in order that they should be put in operation, it was required that the Lord Lieutenant should issue a special proclamation. He referred to the clauses relating to riot and unlawful assembly, the arrest of persons found out at night, the arrest of strangers, and the power of search by day and night for arms by any Inspector of Police having the authority of the Lord Lieutenant. It would hardly be believed that the Lord Lieutenant had not made any distinction or used any discrimination in regard to the particular clauses that he should put in operation in the case of the several counties proclaimed. But the fact was, that he did take the 15 counties mentioned, and applied to every one of them the whole of the provisions of this Act; and, in doing so, he recognized no difference between the comparative quietness of Meath and the disturbed condition of Galway. He repeated that this act on the part of the Lord Lieutenant, in not recognizing any 670 shade of difference between the several counties proclaimed, showed clearly that a weak desire to gain a reputation for energy overcame the desire to maintain law and order in those districts. Four days later the Lord Lieutenant extended the proclamation to King's County, Queen's County, and Meath. And so within five days of the passing of the Act 18 counties were subjected to its full, unmitigated powers. Moreover, the principal towns in Ireland had been subjected to the powers of the Act. He did not mean, of course, that they had been brought under the Curfew Clause, because that would be an absurdity, nor that they were subjected to the clauses for the arrest of strangers and persons found out at night, because in the case where so many people were gathered together that would be practically impossible; but he did mean that all the other provisions of the Act were applicable to Dublin, Limerick, Cork, Kilkenny, Waterford, Galway, and every considerable city and town in Ireland, with the exception of Belfast, which was well known to be the most disorderly of them all. But the same reason which excluded the Province of Ulster from the operation of the Act allowed the Lord Lieutenant also to exclude the town of Belfast; and it was clear, from the very fact he had just mentioned, as to the disorderly condition of that town, that political considerations, and not the desire to maintain law and order there, were the cause of its exemption. He asked, why had the Lord Lieutenant proclaimed these counties and large towns? The Act required that he should be satisfied that this step was rendered necessary in order to prevent crime; that was the condition, and that condition was set forth in the proclamations of the Lord Lieutenant. Passing from that subject for a moment, he turned to the question of searches by night, and to this he asked the close attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. A short time ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the search warrants issued by the Lord Lieutenant had been issued to every Inspector of Police, and, if not, how many officers of police had been entrusted with them? The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, stated that they had not been issued to all the Inspectors. He (Mr. Sexton) wished to point out 671 that the specific provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act with regard to searches by day and night had not been complied with, but that they had been departed from in applying the 14th clause to the 18 proclaimed counties. He found from an examination of the Dublin Gazette that every warrant was addressed to the Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors. Now, the word "Inspector" was defined by the Act to mean a County Inspector—the Sub-Inspector being the Inspector of a district; and it was therefore plain from the wording of The Gazette that these warrants had been issued, not to the Sub-Inspectors, but to the Head Inspectors of each county, and he complained that this was a gross misuse of the powers of the Act. The Act, as hon. Members would be aware, gave power to search houses by day and, under certain circumstances, by night also. This last provision was a very trying one to the people of Ireland, because, as hon. Members knew well, it was a very serious thing to allow an Inspector to enter any house without warning, especially when its inmates were nervous women and nervous men, or when there was anyone lying ill there. The warrants having been addressed to the County Inspectors in the case of each of the counties, it followed that the power of the police to search extended over all the area of the county. This was a most extreme application of the Act, and had it been known that this practice would be resorted to, he believed that many English Members would not have voted for the clause. But what was the condition of the country when the 18 counties were proclaimed? Last year there were 1,000 "suspects" in gaol—now there were only 260. Many of them had been released, it was said, because the condition of the district from which they came had returned to a state of peace, order, and obedience to the law. But if, under the old Coercion Act, 700 men had been released from gaol in one year, he was entitled to infer that the districts had returned in the course of that year to such a condition of order and peace that the Government were able to release them. But how did the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with the administration of this Act? If the districts had returned to such a condition; if peace was re- 672 stored to an extent that enabled the Government to set 700 men at liberty, why did they address to every County Inspector in Ireland a warrant to enter any house by day or night? It was perfectly well understood that the power of search would not be exercised except there was good reason to suppose that arms were concealed on the premises; but it was never for one moment supposed that this power would be handed over upon the morrow of the passing of the Act to the heads of police in 18 Irish counties. If the warrants had been addressed to the Sub-Inspectors, he might have seen more reason for the act of the Lord Lieutenant, because he would have thought that the Lord Lieutenant had reason to believe that in the districts of these Sub-Inspectors secret meetings were held, and secret organizations were likely to be found. But that argument could not apply to the 18 proclaimed counties; and, therefore, he said that the proceeding he had described constituted the most unjustifiable and the most wanton abuse of power on the part of a Lord Lieutenant in Ireland which had presented itself in the whole course of his reading, or had occurred within his recollection. On what information did the Lord Lieutenant act? If he were to quote the official records of crimes on account of which persons had been made amenable in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, reply that the crime which came before the Judges of Assize was a very small part of the crime committed in the country. He might say there was a good deal of undetected crime—a good deal that did not come within reach of the arm of the law; and that this Prevention Act was passed for the purpose of putting down the class of crime which did not come before the Judges of Assize. But he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to listen to what had been said by several of the Judges of Assize. Besides the Calendar of prisoners, the Judge had before him the Constabulary Report, which he considered a much more important and valuable document, and upon which he founded the Charge he made to the Grand Jury. The Committee would have seen that Louth was one of the counties proclaimed; it had had all its liberties placed in the hands of the police. In that county people who struck 673 a constable, or committed an aggravated assault, were deprived of the right of trial by jury, and were liable to be brought before two magistrates, who would try them without a jury. But what had happened at the Louth Assizes? Why, there was only one Crown case, and that, curiously enough, was a charge of perjury against a Crown witness—a wretch named Drew, who swore to a conspiracy amongst a number of respectable farmers to murder certain persons. The presiding Judge was Chief Justice May, and everyone would know him to be incapable of any exaggerated popular sympathies. Chief Justice May said, in charging the Grand Jury at the Louth Assizes nine days before the Lord Lieutenant proclaimed the county, that he found the statement of detected and undetected crime contained in the Report of the County Inspector to be very satisfactory; that there were only 13 cases of crime returned since the last Assizes, which was certainly a most satisfactory state of affairs; that the condition of the county, as compared with others, was satisfactory; and, added the learned Judge to the Inspector—"I hope this state of things will long continue to exist." Yet, notwithstanding this, nine days afterwards the condition of the county was such that the Lord Lieutenant considered himself justified in placing the county under the powers of the Prevention of Crime Act. Then, at the Meath Assizes, Chief Justice Morris, who presided, said there were six cases, none of which presented any particular feature, and he did not feel called upon to make any remark whatever as to the state of the county, or as to the amount of detected or undetected crime. After this statement on the part of that diligent Judge, he was quite sure there was nothing to call attention to. Nevertheless, the county of Meath was proclaimed nine days afterwards. Again, Judge Ormsby, who presided at the Tipperary Assizes, told the Grand Jury that their duties would be both short and light; there was no crime of any serious character, and he said—
I observe with pleasure that during the period over which my duties in connection with it have extended, the county has not been disgraced by any crime of grave character.But, although no crime had been committed in the county, by a stroke of the 674 pen it had been brought under the Prevention of Crime Act. Further, Judge Deasy, who differed from all the other Irish Judges, inasmuch as he had won promotion to the Bench by the force of his judicial ability alone, said to the Grand Jury at the Queen's County Assizes that their duties would be very light; that there was only one serious case, and that the Constabulary Report was in some respects more favourable than it was last year. But although the Judge reported an improvement as compared with last year, the Lord Lieutenant felt bound to put the county under the ban of the Prevention of Crime Act. If there had been anything in the state of Queen's County which called for the restriction of the liberties of the people, he was quite certain it would not have escaped the observation of this learned and impartial Judge; but he had not uttered a single word to that effect, and, therefore, he (Mr. Sexton) said that in the case of Queen's County, as in the cases of Meath, Louth, and Tipperary, there was nothing whatever to justify the action of the Lord Lieutenant in respect of these counties nine or ten days later. He would now turn to the case of cities, and, as he had already pointed out, a number of the principal cities in Ireland had been subjected by proclamation to all the clauses of the Act. Here, again, at the Assizes held at Drogheda, Chief Justice May said that there was only one case to go before the Grand Jury, and that he felt sincere pleasure in congratulating them upon the state of the district; that there had been a diminution of every description of offence since the last Assizes, which was very satisfactory, and that he congratulated the community on its immunity from crimes of violence. The Committee would see that the learned Judge went so far as to congratulate the people of Drogheda on the state of affairs, and even contrasted that town favourably with the rest of Ireland. Then, at the Assizes in the city of Limerick, where Judge Lawson presided, there were only five Crown cases; and, as the learned Judge said nothing to the contrary, he was entitled to conclude that there was nothing in the state of affairs which called for special remark. At Kilkenny Judge Deasy had only three cases to try, and there was no case of any public interest. In Waterford there was only one case to try, and 675 the learned Judge said—"He was happy to see that the state of the city was most peaceful." Having now gone through the list of cities, and quoted in every case the opinions of those who were most entitled to respect—the opinions of the Judges of the Crown—he once more emphasized the fact that the Judges did not speak from the Calendar, or with reference to the prisoners in the dock, but of the whole amount of crime committed in the district. Under these circumstances, he maintained that the manner in which the Act passed three weeks ago was being exercised called for the most serious attention on the part of Her Majesty's Government. It was apparent to him—and he thought it would be to anyone who for a moment considered the circumstances under which the Lord Lieutenant had proclaimed the 18 counties and six of the principal towns of Ireland—that in issuing these proclamations the Lord Lieutenant had neither regarded the conditions of the particular localities, nor the statements of the Irish Judges with respect to them; and he considered that this fact alone entitled him to condemn in the strongest manner what he could not but describe as a most unjust and wanton use of the powers of the Act.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was under the impression that when the House passed this Act of Parliament and armed the Executive in Ireland, it well understood that the Act would be enforced, and when it was about to be enforced the attention of the Executive was directed to this matter; and what the hon. Member termed a rapid decision of two hours after midnight on the day on which the Royal Assent had been received was not a correct description of the action of the Government. The decision of the Government was the result of deliberate consideration while the Act was passing. What grievance was there in the fact that the Act had been applied to the whole of Ireland? The hon. Member was not correct in saying that the whole of Ulster was excepted, and Monaghan and Armagh were included. The allegation was that Ulster was excluded.
§ MR. SEXTONFour baronies altogether, and two Catholic.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)asked 676 how that affected the question? The Act was applied whenever it was required. There were four baronies in which it was required, and, therefore, it was applied. What was the grievance, he wished to know, in persons being subjected to punishment if they took part in any of these offences? Suppose they took part in any riots or unlawful assemblies, would any hon. Member say that they should not be punished? Again, what grievance was there in the fact that the Act was made applicable? It did not require persons to bring themselves under the Act and make themselves liable to punishment. If they took part in riots or unlawful assemblies, he failed to see why they should not be punished; and he certainly thought it would be a strange act on the part of the Executive if, when it had been armed with these powers, it should lay them aside. Nearly all the crime in Ireland recently had arisen from violence, or from driving people out by intimidation, by "Moonlight" riots, and by shooting people in the legs for having taken possession of lands from which others had been evicted. What harm was there in the Act being applied to such cases? It was not because the Act was brought into existence that people were necessarily to subject themselves to its operation; and if these "Moonlighters" went about and committed these offences they could hardly complain at there being an Act of Parliament strong enough to grapple with them, and that the Executive put it into force. Then, with regard to aggravated violence towards persons, one of the complaints was that such acts were allowed to go unpunished. The Act intended that such cases should be punished; but it did not follow that because the Act was passed people should put themselves under its operation. In Louth, for instance, a man might commit an outrage or take part in a riot or "Moonlight riot." He could not see why that man should not be punished, and he thought it would be a dereliotion of duty if the Executive did not put its power into operation. The rest of the grievances were of the same character. The hon. Member practically said unless some of these acts could be pointed out in each district the Act of Parliament ought not to be applied. That was an entirely mistaken view, because the Act was not to be applied after crime had 677 been committed, but was to be applied, so far as possible, to making crime impossible; and if it was made applicable to a particular locality, although no crimes were committed in that locality, no harm would be done, because the Act was practically not applied. Neither could it be applied to one side of a boundary and not to the other, because those boundaries were usually very like imaginary boundaries, and nothing would be easier than to commit a crime on one side of the boundary and, by crossing over to the other side, evade the Act. Suppose an Act was passed which applied to the whole of the United Kingdom, the hon. Member would say that it ought not to apply to the whole of the Kingdom, but only to those places in which there had been an exhibition of crime of a character which the Act contemplated. With such a view as that there might as well be no legislation. If an Act made punishment sure and speedy, it rendered crime less likely. Of course, if a stringent Act of Parliament was in force some people must be put to inconvenience—some persons, for instance, might be stopped by policemen and obliged to give an account of themselves. But in this ease every kind of horrible crime had been committed. He did not wish to make the case worse than it was; but he had been brought very much in contact with these matters, and, in his opinion, crime was vastly diminished. But it must be recollected that the object of an Act of Parliament of this kind, and of every Act of Parliament, was not merely to punish crime, but to supply powers which might render crime impossible. If people knew that execution would speedily follow an offence, they would be likely to abstain from committing the offence, just as without such punishment they would commit offences with impunity. Therefore, it was not because crime did not now exist to the same extent as it did some time ago that the Act was less necessary; on the contrary, it was more necessary, and the fact that crime was diminishing was largely due to the circumstance that the people who had been committing these crimes knew very well what was now in store for them. The Calendar only represented certain cases which the Attorney General thought should be tried. It did not represent the cases sent for trial, nor all the crime which 678 was indicated, but for which nobody was made accountable. The hon. Member had referred to the case of a person named Keane; but the hon. Member's information differed entirely from the statement made by the Chief Secretary in reply to his Question to-day, and the facts were not as the hon. Member was instructed to represent them. The hon. Member had stated that the lady had applied for an adjournment in order to prepare her case. The fact was, she denied having been summoned at all, although she had really been summoned the day before she gave the denial.
§ MR. SEXTONShe stated her sister had received the summons.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the lady's statement was that she had not been summoned, and she remained outside the Court in defiance until the warrant was issued, and she was brought into Court. She did not then ask for an adjournment because she was not then ready to go on with the case. The hon. Member stated that the lady had been the holder of a farm from which she had at that time been evicted, her rent being in arrear; and that, the farm having been taken by the landlord at the end of six months for redemption, it was not unnatural that she should, on two or three occasions, have used language which brought her within the law. It was not unnatural that if a man received an insult he should knock his insulter down. But this lady appeared to have used language which was of an exceedingly guilty character, and which it was quite necessary to stop. But, whatever the charge was, she did not ask for an adjournment because she was not ready. Her first defence was that she was not amenable at all, because she had not been summoned, and when she was brought into Court upon the warrant she went on with the case. The case was reported in The Waterford Mail.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the lady pleaded that she was not guilty, and wanted the case adjourned for a week in order that she might get professional assistance, because she had been taken by surprise.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was not disposed to take the newspaper reports as correct, because many 679 of the cases were reported in such a way as to give to the cases a totally different complexion to the one they ought to bear.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the speech they had just listened to was that of a practised counsellor, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made a speech of considerable length without uttering one syllable about the real point at issue. The main argument of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sexton) was that when the Prevention of Crime Bill was passing through the House its employment was limited to those districts which would be named; that, in fact, it would only operate in proclaimed districts. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill (Sir William Harcourt) laid it down that this would be a limitation upon the operation of the Act, so that it came to this—that the Act would only be applied where the Government had strong reason for employing it. The hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) had said that the Government declared they would only apply the four clauses in districts the state of which peremptorily required their exercise; but in spite of this declaration they had used them in districts where there was not the smallest need for them. Last year, some time after the now expiring Coercion Act came into operation, the Irish Members had reason to complain of the impossibility of reconciling the use to which that Act was put with the promises and undertakings made during its passage through the House. But he did not think so short a time as three weeks had elapsed when they were able to make that complaint. Some months were allowed to elapse before the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster), who, he hoped, would never again rise to an official position, especially in regard to Ireland, was guilty of a flagrant violation of the pledges upon which the Act was obtained. But now, three weeks after the Prevention of Crime Bill became law, they found the Government absolutely putting it to uses to which they declared they did not intend to put it. He had taken the trouble to refer to the report in Hansard of the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary in regard to the application of these clauses, and he found that nothing could be clearer than the words of the 680 right hon. and learned Gentleman. In vol. 270, page 1,042, the Home Secretary was thus reported—
He only rose to offer a few words which, he thought, might remove some of the difficulties which had been raised by hon. Members to this clause. It was the desire of the Irish. Government and of Lord Spencer not to use these extraordinary powers except in cases where the Lord Lieutenant considered their exercise was absolutely required. It would be observed that several clauses of the Bill referred to proclaimed districts, and the Irish Government were of opinion that that limitation of proclaimed districts might be extended to other clauses of the Bill. The Government were perfectly willing to agree that this clause should only operate within a proclaimed district—that was, a district which was in such a state of disturbance as would justify and require the use of these summary powers. A sort of premium would thus be placed upon a district to keep undisturbed and quiet, and he hoped that the announcement he had now made would tend to facilitate the passing of the clause. Effect could either be given to the concession at the end of the clause, or perhaps, better still, on Report. In the meantime, he would ask hon. Members to consider that the clause should only apply to proclaimed districts."—[3 Hansard, cclxx. 1042.]
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was not in Order in reading from debates which had taken place during the present Session.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether it was possible to reconcile the statement of the Home Secretary, that these clauses would only be applied in districts which were in a state of disturbance, with the application of the clauses in districts which had been complimented by the going Judges of Assize because of the absence of crime? A few days ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether it was a fact that the going Judge of Assize had complimented the town of Galway on the absence of crime, and that only six cases at most were brought before the Judge? The right hon. Gentleman, with perfect candour, admitted that only two cases were brought before the Judge; but the county of Galway had been proclaimed, and in face of the facts the right hon. Gentleman said the Lord Lieutenant had no intention of withdrawing the proclamation. He did not wish to bring charges of bad faith against Ministers, though he might have occasion to do so if he wished to be discourteous or ungracious in his re- 681 marks. It was, however, perfectly impossible for him to reconcile the proclamation of certain undisturbed districts with the statement of the Home Secretary.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he had not the pleasure of being present during the discussion; but when he entered the House he found reference was being made to the proclamation of counties in Ireland. As the subject had been introduced, he wished to declare his opinion that there had been a deliberate breach of the pledges made by the Home Secretary during the passage of the Prevention of Crime Bill. He (Mr. Callan) brought forward three Amendments to that Bill. The object of one was to limit the power of the Lord Lieutenant to proclaiming meetings except in proclaimed districts; and one of the arguments used against him was that if his Amendment were carried there would be an inducement to unnecessarily proclaim counties, so as to have the power of proclaiming meetings. Another of his Amendments was to the Curfew Clause, and was to the effect that the clause should only operate in districts which had been proclaimed in consequence of the crime prevailing in it. The Home Secretary said—
The Irish Government were of opinion that that limitation of proclaimed districts might be extended to other clauses of the Bill. The Government were perfectly willing to agree that this clause should only operate within a proclaimed district—that was, a district which was in such a state of disturbance as would justify and require the use of these summary powers. A sort of premium would thus be placed upon a district to keep undisturbed and quiet, and he hoped that the announcement he had now made would tend to facilitate the passing of the clause."—[Ibid.]He (Mr. Callan) was never more surprised in his life than to find, within three days of the Act coming into operation, that the county town of Drogheda and the county of Louth were proclaimed. What had happened? He would quote from the Drogheda Conservative paper, a respectable print which gave very accurate reports, and it stated that the Commission of Drogheda was opened by the Right Hon. Chief Justice May. The district of Drogheda was proclaimed the same week that the statement he was about to quote was made; in fact, the statement was made on the Monday, and the county town of Drogheda was proclaimed on the following Friday. Chief 682 Justice May, in addressing the Grand Jury, said—Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the Grand Jury of the county of the town of Drogheda,—The business you have to transact on this occasion is very light. There is only one case to go before you, and it is one that presents no difficulty and requires no observations on my part. From inquiries I have made it affords me sincere pleasure to be able to congratulate you and the inhabitants of this district on its very satisfactory state. There appears a diminution in every description of offence since last Assizes, and a very satisfactory diminution in the offence of drunkenness. It is a very great pleasure in these unhappy times that we are thus able to congratulate you, and that this appearance contrasts favourably, and very favourably, with that which is presented in other parts of Ireland. There is an utter absence in this part of that unhappy class of offence that has fallen upon and disgraced other parts of the country. I am glad to think this part of Ireland is free from such foul outrages as we hear of occurring elsewhere, and which act as a stigma upon our National character. It is with great pleasure I am able to tell you that your county of the town of Drogheda is free from outrage.Within a week of that congratulation the promise made by the Home Secretary was deliberately broken. So far as the Home Secretary was concerned, the Prevention of Crime Act was obtained on false pretences; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem as ashamed as he ought to be of the manner in which the Irish Executive had falsified the pledges which he had made to that House. What had happened in Dundalk, in the county he (Mr. Callan) represented? The next day another eminent Irish Judge—Mr. Justice Harrison, a Conservative—addressed the Grand Jury in this language—It gives me sincere pleasure on this, the first occasion on which I have the honour of presiding in this Court, to be in a position to tell you that the criminal business to go before you is very light. There are only three bills sent up; one is a larceny, another is an assault case, and the third is a case of a peculiar kind, which I am sure you will examine carefully, and return a true bill if, in your opinion, a primâ facie case of perjury is made out.…. The only other thing to which I may refer is the Report of the County Inspector, which I find to be very satisfactory. There are only 12 cases of crime reported since last Assizes, and this, certainly, is very satisfactory. It is a very satisfactory distinction when compared with other counties, where I get a return of 500 or 600 cases to investigate. I hope and trust this state of things may long continue in your county; but I am sorry to say that some of your cases of undetected crime are of a class pointing to a disorganization of society—writing of threatening letters and other forms 683 of intimidation; but they are not numerous; and I hope the symptoms will not spread into anything more serious in this comparatively happy and contented portion of the land.It was a fortnight now since he (Mr. Callan) presented the Chief Secretary for Ireland with a copy of the report of the observations of Mr. Chief Justice May and Mr. Justice Harrison with respect to the county town of Drogheda and the county of Louth. The Grand Juries of both those counties were congratulated upon the peaceable state of the counties, and yet, within a week of that congratulation, the districts had been proclaimed. The county of Londonderry, represented by the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Porter), was not proclaimed, and yet crime was ten times as great there as in the county of Louth. The people of Louth would resent this insult to their county by, at the next election, making it compulsory upon any candidate who proposed to offer himself that he must oppose in every way this pledge-breaking Government. Just imagine that in the county of Louth, where there was no crime, if a man went out of his house at 7 o'clock at night he could be arrested. "When the Curfew Clause was before the House, the Home Secretary misled the House into the belief that no county would be proclaimed except where the crime was of such a character as to absolutely require that those extra powers should be put in force. He (Mr. Callan) did not complain of any other county not being proclaimed; but he did complain that the worst clause of the Bill should be put in force in respect of his own county. He hoped to have another opportunity elsewhere of showing up the Government in their true colours. For instance, in the county of Monaghan, which was represented by one of the ardent supporters of the Government, he should make it a point of informing the people of the acts of this unprincipled and pledge-breaking Administration.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought he was right in supposing that, under the present Vote, they were asked to contribute a salary for the New Crime Under Secretary; and, if that was the case, be wished to move a reduction of the Vote by the salary of Mr. Jenkinson. He considered that Mr. Jenkinson was not an official who, from his antecedents, ought to be designed to fulfil 684 the important functions of the Head of the Criminal Investigation Department in Ireland. He noticed that the salary of the Assistant Under Secretary—
THE CHAIREMANsaid, he thought that this subject would more properly come under the Supplementary Estimates.
§ MR. O'DONNELLasked whether it was under this Vote that a portion of the salary, at any rate, of the New Crime Under Secretary, was to be paid. He had a right to information on that point from the Government. He hoped be should receive it, because he did not wish to be bound to move to report Progress.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, this Vote was prepared at the commencement of the financial year, before Earl Spencer came into Office; and it was only after Earl Spencer came into Office that the duties connected with law and order in Ireland, and with the prevention of crime in Ireland, were removed from the Under Secretary, and in consequence the Vote did not appear in the Chief Secretary's Office for this financial year. He presumed the money would be provided in a Supplementary Vote at the commencement of the next Session.
§ MR. O'DONNELLasked if he was to understand that the New Crime Under Secretary was to draw no pay until next year?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that when a new official was appointed it was not customary to present an Estimate for his pay.
§ MR. O'DONNELLasked from what fund was Mr. Jenkinson to be paid in the meantime? It was quite evident that somehow or other the expenses of this new official were to be paid, and he presumed they were to be paid out of some portion of the money that the House was now asked to vote; but whether or not a regular sum would be brought in, separately allocated to that office, he did not know. In the meantime the official was appointed, and that official was to be paid. Did Colonel Brackenbury receive no remuneration for the time he was in office?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Gentleman must be conversant with the manner in which the financial business of this country was conducted. From time to time, in the course of the financial year, it was discovered that a new official was required, and it was impos- 685 sible that that discovery should always be made immediately on the very eve of the presentation of the Estimates. The salary of the new official was paid out of the general fund of the House; and, in order that the sense of Parliament might be taken before the close of the financial year, a Supplementary Estimate was presented, under the head, in this case, of the Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland. Parliament then had an opportunity of discussing the propriety of the Vote. He should imagine that the hon. Member would be in Order in making what remarks he chose, because in the interval, before the Supplementary Estimate could be presented, Colonel Brackenbury did receive, and Mr. Jenkinson would receive, a salary out of the lump sum voted for the Chief Secretary's Department.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that was clear and satisfactory, and he was glad that his intervention had led to this explanation of the manner in which the financial business of the country was carried on. Upon this Vote, therefore, he was entitled to refer to the appointment of Mr. Jenkinson, and to object to that appointment. He objected to the appointment of Mr. Jenkinson in the strongest manner; he would object to the appointment of Mr. Jenkinson even if there were no special circumstances in his career, because he considered that an official who had been trained in the despotic school of Indian officialism was no proper person to be employed in a post of responsibility in a country like Ireland, which still entertained some hope of recovering its Constitutional liberty one day or other. The first objection he had to make against Mr. Jenkinson was that as Crime Assistant Secretary he would really be the master of the liberty of the Irish people; and in the discharge of his functions he should be, if those functions were to be discharged properly, armed beforehand with a proper knowledge of Ireland and of the Irish people. It was not a post which should be given to a stranger. In the first place, Mr. Jenkinson was a stranger in the most thorough sense of the word. He had served some 22 or 23 years in India, and he had not served at all in Ireland. He entered the Indian Civil Service somewhere as far back as 1856, and he only left the Indian Civil Service a couple of years ago. He had no experience whatever of Ireland, of 686 the ways of the people of Ireland, of the crime of Ireland, of the inducements to crime in Ireland, of the provocations to crime in Ireland; he was an absolute stranger to the country; and it was, therefore, unreasonable to import Mr. E. G. Jenkinson from India, and to entrust him with the work of the detection of crime in Ireland. But, in the second place, he objected to Mr. E. G. Jenkinson from the nature of his Indian antecedents. He was a Commissioner in Oude, but had left no record behind him of having introduced any improvement into the condition of the Province. With regard to Oude, it would be enough to say that it was an Ireland on a large scale. Mr. Irwin, a distinguished Indian Civil servant, had written an able book on the Garden of India, which was the name Oude was known by—a name derived from ancient tradition, but by no means appropriate under the English Government. Writing about Oude, this gentleman had said that it might be supposed that the Irish cultivator had reached the very lowest limits of human existence; but a considerable proportion of the population of Oude lived a life still lower and more miserable than that. Such was the country from which Mr. Jenkinson had only recently come—such was the country over whose miseries he presided—such was the country whose miseries he did nothing to remove. A gentleman of that description, who never felt for agrarian misery in India, was not the man to be entrusted with the supervision of agrarian crime in Ireland, because he who did not understand, the misery of Irish agrarian life could not be an intelligent observer, or an intelligent supervisor of that agrarian crime which in nine cases out often was the almost natural outcome of agrarian misery and oppression. But he did not only object to Mr. Jenkinson as one of those Oude officials who had done nothing for that miserable Province. He objected to Mr. Jenkinson being appointed to the permanent Secretaryship in Ireland, because he objected to Ireland, in its present condition, being governed by one of the Mutiny Magistrates of India. He had no wish to detract from the undoubted high qualities, in many respects, that Mr. Jenkinson possessed; but than his there had been no more iron hand, or iron heart, amongst all the strong-handed and hard-hearted 687 men who drowned in blood the struggle of a portion of the Indian people in 1857. He (Mr. O'Donnell) was not going into unnecessary details; but they knew that even such an English writer as Colonel Malleson had declared that the Indian outbreak of 1857 was "due to the bad faith of the English Government"—and he was using the Colonel's own words. In 1857 Mr. Jenkinson held the grade of Assistant Magistrate in Benares and, as an officer of that distinction in the English Government of Benares, he must take his responsibility for the manner in which the rebellion, mutiny, or popular discontent were suppressed in that place. On that subject, he (Mr. O'Donnell) was not going to ask the Committee, and he was certainly not going to ask his countrymen in Ireland, to believe any charge against Mr. Jenkinson solely on his unsupported testimony; but he surely had a right to tell the Committee and his countrymen that Mr. Jenkinson, the Assistant Magistrate, and a member of the body of English magistrates who ruled at Benares during the time of the Mutiny, was not, by his antecedents, a man who ought to have the power which, in the position to which he had been appointed, would be intrusted to him under the last Irish Coercion Act. Sir John Kay, the distinguished British historian, in his history of the Reign of Terror in Benares during the rule of the Commissioners—in the history called The Sepoy Mutiny—said, in the second volume, page 236, that our military officers were hunting down criminals of all kinds, and hanging them with as little compunction as though they had been vermin. The Military Courts, he said, sentenced old and young to be hanged with indiscriminate ferocity. On one occasion, some young boys, who, perhaps in mere sport, had flaunted the rebel colours, and had gone about beating tom-toms, were tried and sentenced to death, and what was done with some show of formality was nothing to compare with what was done with no formality at all. Volunteer hanging parties were established, and went to work in the district, and one man boasted of the number of Natives he had "finished off" "quite in an artistic manner," with mango-trees for gibbets, and elephants for drops—the victims being strung up for pastime in the form of the figure 8. It might be said, on behalf of Mr. Jenkinson, that he pro- 688 tested against these nameless and horrible atrocities; and before Mr. Jenkinson, the Mutiny Magistrate of Benares, was furnished with all the powers of "Spymaster General" in Ireland, the Irish people had a right to know that he had protested against these atrocities, and that he had raised his voice against this "artistic finishing off" of untried prisoners, and against the sentencing to death of children whose only crime was that of flaunting about the rebel colours and beating tom-toms. In the name of the Irish people, and in the name of the Indian people, whose grievances were so sadly neglected in that House, he protested against the present promotion of the Mutiny Assistant Magistrate of Benares, and he told Her Majesty's Government that they could not obtain from the Irish people sympathy, respect, or support for the man who had on his hands the blood that was foully shed by Englishmen during the panic of 1857.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had been several times complimented, since he took the rather difficult post he now had the honour to occupy, on the courtesy and moderation with which he answered the questions and statements of hon. Members; but he must say that, if ever his courtesy and sense of moderation was tried, it had been by the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. If that speech had come from the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) at a time when he was moved by that deep sense he had of what he believed to be the wrongs of his country, he (Mr. Trevelyan) could have understood it; but the hon. Member who had just spoken was not the hon. Member for Wexford. The hon. Member who had just spoken was an hon. Member who, if there was anyone in the House who knew the exact strength of words, both in writing and speaking, had that faculty at his command. Every single word the hon. Member spoke was spoken deliberately; and he (Mr. Trevelyan) ventured to say that there never was an attack made upon anyone in that House which was more repugnant to the judgment and the feeling of all those Members who desired not to excite the prejudices of the Irish people against those who had to administer the affairs of that country than the attack which was now made upon Mr. Jenkinson. What had the hon. Member done? Knowing that 689 an ex-Indian official was going to be promoted to a most important position in Ireland, he had endeavoured to prejudice the Irish people by a method of reasoning which appeared to him (Mr. Trevelyan) extremely well calculated—when used with the skill which he would not characterize—to effect the object in view. The hon. Member, after 20 years, referred to what was worst in the repression of the great Indian Mutiny—he rooted out a certain description of cruel doings on the part of the English, and described them in order that his description might be reported in the Irish papers to-morrow, and that Mr. Jenkinson's name might be associated with them. The hon. Member said at the outset that the outbreak in India was due to the bad faith of the English Government, and that Mr. Jenkinson must take his responsibility for the way in which that popular outbreak was repressed. Now, what was Mr. Jenkinson's connection with the Indian Mutiny? When it broke out he was a lad of 19. He found himself at Benares—or in the neighbourhood, he (Mr. Trevelyan) was not quite certain which—as assistant magistrate in the month of June, 1857, having been two or three months in India altogether. He (Mr. Trevelyan) did not suppose Mr. Jenkinson had very much to do with the so-called crimes of the English Government which brought on that outbreak. According to the statement of Mr. F. M. Lind, of the Bengal Civil Service—
His (Mr. Jenkinson's) first care was to see to the safety of his friends, whom he sent off in a carriage to Rajghat, where they would be out of harm's way. He then borrowed his friend's pony, and set off towards the Civil lines to join the magistrate of the district, and to place his services at the disposal of that officer for any work that might be required of him. On the road he was twice fired at by Sepoys.The account went on to say—Our position was a very precarious one. We could get no information as to what was going on in cantonments, and the Native messengers we had sent to seek this information did not return to us. Under these circumstances we decided that one of ourselves should go on this mission. Mr. Gubbins, the Judge, expressed a wish to go, if anyone would accompany him. Eventually, Messrs. Jenkinson and De Momet accompanied Mr. Gubbins, the two latter driving in a buggy, while Mr. Jenkinson rode his borrowed pony. In crossing the Burma Bridge the party were going slowly, Mr. Jenkinson closely following the buggy, when suddenly, only a few paces off, he detected several Sepoys 690 lying in ambush, preparing to fire. Fearful lest any remark from him might induce his friends to pull up, and thus give the Sepoys a standing shot, he called out to Mr. Gubbins to drive on as rapidly as possible, and then, drawing himself up alongside of the buggy, interposed his own person between his friends in the buggy and the Sepoys. On reaching the ambuscade the Sepoys fired a volley from behind the parapet of the bridge. Fortunately the bullets flew harmlessly by. Still, the unselfish offer of his own life for the protection of his friends was a gallant deed, bravely done, and might have been the means of saving the life of one whose counsels, arid influence, and local knowledge, in those days were of infinite value to us all at Benares.Mr. Jenkinson almost immediately came under the notice of the authorities. As Mr. Lind said—It was under this phase of matters that Mr. Jenkinson came to the front. It was true that he was young in the Service and inexperienced in the routine of official life, still he was a man of quick perception and ready action, and possessed in his person qualities which were of inestimable value in those days, a happy combination of physical activity, mental vigour, and untiring energy. He was clearly the man for the times.Mr. Jenkinson, as he (Mr. Trevelyan) would presently show, was not a man likely to take part in what might be called the penal side of the rebellion. He was one of those happy specimens of the Indian Civil servant who combined a love for the Natives with that spirit of enterprize and patriotism which had made England what she was. Mr. Jenkinson obtained leave from the Indian Civil Service to go into the very thick of the fighting. He raised a corps of 150 horsemen, part being English and part Natives, and, followed by these men, he went into many of the most severe actions. This was what was said of what he did on one occasion—Mr. Jenkinson accompanied the Cavalry, and was engaged in all their operations during the day. He was close to Mr. Venables when that gentleman was wounded, and was engaged in a hand-to-hand fight with a Sepoy armed with musket, shield, and sword, whom he eventually vanquished and killed.Brigadier General Franks refers to this in paragraph 57 of his despatch thus—Messrs. Lind, Jenkinson, and Venables, Civil Service, accompanied the force in the action at Chanda and Amereepur. In the former action Mr. Venables, charging the flying enemy with the Cavalry, with whom he did good service, received a severe spear wound through the thigh. Mr. Jenkinson, after the above action, assisted me in escorting Mr. Venables into Jounpur for medical treatment. It should be stated here that Brigadier Franks' force having 691 advanced to the relief of Lucknow, Mr. Jenkinson was ordered to return to his own district.Mr. H. G. Astell, late Judge and Special Commissioner of Jounpùr, in a testimonial, said of Mr. Jenkinson—Mr. Jenkinson showed both courage and skill in carrying out his plans. He started at dark, and arrived before daylight, securing the men, who were found ploughing by moonlight, to prevent them giving alarm. The informers, who had accompanied the party, pointed out a small palisaded enclosure in the middle of a thick jungle, and only about 300 yards distant from a large village, which was under the protection of a large and influential Talookdar of Oudh, whose name I now forget. Mr. Jenkinson, with some of his men, dismounted and forced their way through the palisade, and succeeded in securing Umuldàr Singh and his son, whom they found asleep, with the guns and pistols of the plundered indigo factory lying loaded at their side. Mr. Jenkinson personally headed the manoeuvre, and was the first through the palisade. All the party were back into the Jounpùr district before daylight, and before the alarm was given. It was a most spirited and successful operation. The prisoners were both sentenced to transportation; I forget for what period. I was with Mr. Jenkinson all through the Mutiny in the Benares and Jounpùr districts in 1857 and 1858, and can safely assert that he was foremost in all acts of energy and gallantry, never sparing himself either in the matter of hard work or exposure.And Mr. W. Muir wrote—Notwithstanding his ill-health, he has borne himself bravely, and no public servant devoted himself more unreservedly to his duties than Mr. Jenkinson. His services at Jhansi, as Deputy Commissioner in charge of the Revenue Settlement, and subsequently at Saharunpùr, were much appreciated by the Government. The drainage works, which he carried out with great energy and intelligence, have proved most successful in improving the sanitary condition of that town; and his administration generally was vigorous and able.Mr. Jenkinson obtained such a reputation that he not only received a special vote of thanks from the Indian Office, but received the thanks of Her Majesty the Queen. He was one of those men whose success was very much due to those qualities which rendered him eminently fitted to bring benefit upon his fellow creatures when put in a position of authority over them in times of peace. Mr. Jenkinson returned to the ordinary duties of his Civil Service in India; and he (Mr. Trevelyan) would quote from one or two testimonials to show how he conducted himself in that Service. Sir George Couper wrote as follows: —When Sir John Strachey made over the harge of this Government to me, he said you 692 were the best magistrate and collector in the North-Western Provinces; and, as a Commissioner of a non-regulation division, you have fully justified this eulogium from so good a judge.Hon. Gentlemen knew what it was to be one of the best magistrates and collectors in the North-Western Provinces in India; and when they considered what it was to be not only an eminent magistrate, but an eminent Commissioner at the head of five or six districts, governing 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 people under the eye of a man who rose to be Governor of those great Provinces, they would agree that Mr. Jenkinson's reputation could not be better established. Another testimonial came from the Hon. Edward Drummond. He said—Everyone whom I have ever met regarded Mr. Jenkinson in those days as a young officer full of the highest promise. His zeal, energy, and intelligence were admitted on all sides; and the result of a long official acquaintance with him has fully justified the high opinion I always entertained of his abilities and perseverance. We have, for many years since 1857, been associated together in district administration, the last occasion being when he was for some years collector and magistrate of Saharunpùr, and his official superior as Commissioner of the Meerut Division, and I confidently say that it was a pleasure to work with him. If there was a fault at all, it was that of over-zeal. I have often entreated Mr. Jenkinson to spare himself a little, and to make over work, not absolutely requiring his personal attention, to his subordinates. I was fearful lest over-work might break down his health. It is hardly necessary for me to add that Mr. Jenkinson, as an executive and administrative officer, was second to none of those who ever came under my cognizance, although many officers, admittedly among the most able in the Service, have served under me. In entrusting any duty to him, I felt confident that it would be most thoroughly and perfectly done, whether it was a matter of ordinary importance, or one requiring tact and judgment and careful handling. Mr. Jenkinson has left his mark wherever he had any official connection with a district.Mr. Jenkinson showed quite recently that the old spirit which he displayed during the Mutiny was not out of the way when it had to be used in the pursuit and apprehension of a criminal. This gentleman, who was—as he (Mr. Trevelyan) would show—regarded as the protector and friend of all the populations he governed, had only one set of enemies, and they were the enemies of law and order. Mr. Jenkinson, on one occasion, heard of an extremely powerful robber chief, who had obtained the protection of the landowners of the district; 693 and this was how, according to a statement before him (Mr. Trevelyan), the robber was captured—Mr. Jenkinson had to attempt the capture with the aid only of a very few followers; the presence of a larger number would have incurred the risk of an alarm, thus defeating the object of the mission. Slowly and silently the palisade round the enclosure was forced, and then, with silent step, the resting-place of the dacoit was approached. Had there been the slightest noise so as to awaken the sleepers, Mr. Jenkinson's position would have been a most hazardous one, and it is not too much to say that his life would not have been worth a moment's purchase. As it happened, the sleepers were resting in fancied security. There was then an anxious moment of suspense, the prize was all but in the captor's grasp; but there was still the cordon of followers to be gone through. This being successfully done, Mr. Jenkinson sprang upon the sleeping dacoit, whose hands were quickly tied, and the possibility of escape prevented. But it was still necessary to carry off the prize without raising the country. This, too, was done, and the captured men were soon conveyed into British territory. Mr. Jenkinson alone deserves the whole credit of the capture; he it was who conceived the scheme; he it was who so pluckily carried it to a successful ending. The dacoits were tried by Mr. Astell, and were convicted and sentenced by him as Special Commissioner. This was only one instance of good work done by Mr. Jenkinson. I had nearly overlooked it. I may have overlooked many others. It is illustrative of his desire to do his duty under all circumstances.No one in Dublin, during the terrible events of three months ago, could ever forget the bearing of Mr. Jenkinson during that trying time. No one could ever forget his coolness and good feeling; and at that time, when everyone's heart was sick within him, everyone felt that they had amongst them one of those men who could always be relied upon at a crisis. Mr. Jenkinson was ordinarily of a remarkably quiet and unassuming manner; but the moment there were dangers or disaster, or trying circumstances, or heavy responsibilities to be encountered, he seemed to draw himself up and become quite another man. He (Mr. Trevelyan) would now read another extract—a very interesting one, and one which he hoped would receive the attention of the readers of the Irish newspapers, or those of them who read the speech of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Donnell). The extract he was about to read had reference to the last place but one at which Mr. Jenkinson was Commissioner—
§ MR. O'DONNELLWhat is the extract taken from?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was about to quote from the Report on the Settlement of Jhansi from the Board of Revenue to the Government of the North-Western Provinces. He (Mr. Trevelyan) would read this extract, and would then wind up by reading a much more important document. The former extract was as follows:—
Mr. Jenkinson's Report is so able and exhaustive that the remarks to he made in this review may be much briefer than in the districts of Dehra and Saharunpùr. His Report contains a full account of the history and economic condition of the district prior to British rule, and since it became a part of the British Possessions. The mode of Native assessment, the fiscal results of the assessment now effected, the determination of proprietary rights, and cultivating holdings, are in turn discussed with conciseness, and clearness, and succinct enumeration of the more salient points, is all that is now needed.In conclusion, I am desired to bring prominently to the favourable notice of Government the services of the Commissioners, and the exertions of several Settlement officers. The excellent work performed by Mr. Jenkinson in drawing up the Record of Rights, in settling the numerous and difficult claims to proprietary title, and in embodying in an admirable Report a full account of all Settlement operations, is especially deserving of the thanks of the Board.He (Mr. Trevelyan) quoted this to show what the British officials thought of Mr. Jenkinson's conduct at Jhansi. The next document he wished to quote was an address from the people of Saharunpùr district to Mr. Jenkinson. It said—During the seven years you have been in charge of the district you have, by your unvaried high sense of justice and clemency, inspired all, whether high or low, with feelings of sincere respect and admiration, and have earned their loyalty and lasting gratitude to the Government whom you have so faithfully represented. During your administration of the district, all the inhabitants, as well as the various officers who had the good fortune of serving under you, have to acknowledge that their comfort and welfare have ever been your first consideration; and now, on your departure from amongst us, there is not a heart that does not feel the pang of being parted from a kind benefactor and sincere friend. But, though absent from us, your name and good deeds will live for centuries among us, and our children and grandchildren will he taught to recall your name as a household word.The address then went on to refer to Mr. Jenkinson's exertions to improve the sanitary condition of the place, and to put a stop to epidemics and sickness; and it expressed the gratitude of the 695 various religious sects—especially the Mahomedans of the district, for the mosque he had been instrumental in procuring for them—for the interest he had taken in their welfare. It ended by saying—There are, moreover, many landlords in the district who will never forget the fatherly kindness by which you have enabled them to extricate themselves from what appeared to them inevitable ruin and poverty, and, by enabling them to pay off their debts, have re-established them in the high position they held.Such was the testimony of the Natives in favour of Mr. Jenkinson. He (Mr. Trevelyan) had now gone through Mr. Jenkinson's career at greater length than he should have wished; but he had felt it impossible not to try to do this eminent public servant justice when an attack had been made upon him—an attack which he could not but feel the hon. Member who had made it, on thinking the matter over, would be sorry for.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had stated in his previous speech that he did not underrate many qualities which Mr. Jenkinson possessed. What he said was that that gentleman did not possess the qualities or the antecedents which fitted him for this post in Ireland. Quickness of perception and great resolution, no doubt, he possessed in a high degree, and those qualities rendered him all the more responsible for the part he took in the suppression of the Mutiny at Benares, where, on the admission of the Chief Secretary, he volunteered his services. He asked the Chief Secretary to produce some proof that Mr. Jenkinson could dissociate himself from the horrors perpetrated against the Native population at Benares. In the whole course of his observations, the Chief Secretary had been unable to bring forward a single word in such exculpation of his friend. The Chief Secretary also stated that Mr. Jenkinson, who was to discharge such delicate and quasi-official functions in Ireland, had actually volunteered to lead a body of free-lances in the suppression of the Mutiny at Benares. That might prove that gentleman to be a bold and daring leader of men, who trusted to cold steel in preference to anything else; but it did not show that he was fit to be at the head of the Criminal Investigation Department of a Constitutional country like Ireland. 696 Every statement of the Chief Secretary only confirmed the justice of his (Mr. O'Donnell's) original observations. The right hon. Gentleman had read out a certain number of testimonials to Mr. Jenkinson; but did he not know, with his experience of India, that every Anglo-Indian official of any consequence who desired testimonials could obtain the most abject addresses of gratitude from all the officials and Indian ratepayers in his jurisdiction? Did the imprisonment of 11,000 Natives in Bengal diminish the testimonials showered upon Mr. Ashley Eden when he quitted the Governorship of that Province the other day? The Chief Secretary quoted a testimonial from Sir George Couper, the late Governor of the North-Western Provinces. Would the right hon. Gentleman give him the opportunity of proving to the House the manner in which Sir George Couper left the population to die like flies from preventible famine a few years ago? The good qualities of Sir George Couper—
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERrose to Order, and asked whether it was open to the hon. Member to discuss the merits of Sir George Couper?
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is quite out of Order in discussing the appointment of Sir George Couper.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Chief Secretary had referred to the superior manner in which Mr. Jenkinson had settled the Jhansi difficulty. He must inform the Chief Secretary that the settlement of the Jhansi matter had been so bad, and so out of keeping with the habits of the people, and so productive of endless dissensions, that one of the questions engaging Indian legislation this year had been the new Bill—the Jhansi Encumbered Estates Bill—which was specially intended to redress some of the more glaring defects of the settlement to which the Chief Secretary alluded. When the right hon. Gentleman alluded to Anglo-Indians, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would remember that he was well acquainted with the biographies of Anglo-Indian officials. He had no desire to mar the brilliant prospects of Mr. Jenkinson, that dashing leader of free-lances, who went through the black multitude with sufficient vigour—that most bepraised master of dependent officials. If he had the 697 power of dealing with the complicated business of Ireland, surely he might be still more useful in some other country more suited to his peculiar capacities. They did not want Anglo-Indian administration in Ireland; they did not want ex-suppressors of Indian Mutinies in Ireland; they did not want Jhansi Settlement officers in Ireland. The Jhansi Settlement was one of the most cruelly confiscated districts in India. He repeated his protest against this appointment, and sincerely hoped the Government would place this Anglo-Indian official in some position where his rough-and-ready methods would be more appreciated than they would in Ireland. He was certain that the appointment of that gentleman, with his ignorance of Ireland, with his training in the bad school of Indian despotism, would be the cause of endless troubles in Ireland.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTThe hon. Member may relieve his mind of any anxiety lest he should injure the present prospects of Mr. Jenkinson. Nothing falling from the hon. Member, and in such a tone as that in which he has addressed the Committee, will affect the character or the position of Mr. Jenkinson. He has said they do not want Indian officials in Ireland. There is one thing we do not want in this House; we do not want such language as we have heard to-night. The House of Commons has reason to be ashamed of any Member of the House who shall be capable of uttering such language, which. I venture to say every man of right feeling and mind in this country would condemn. What is the language we have heard with reference to this gentleman, who, when a gallant youth of 19, was engaged in the desperate conflict of the Indian Mutiny, when a handful of Englishmen were struggling against thousands and hundreds of thousands of barbarous savages at Cawnpore and Lucknow, and whom the hon. Member has attacked as if he were a ruffian, because at the head of a few gallant men he resisted those savages and maintained the honour of the English name? This is the language which a man ventures, in the presence of English Gentlemen, to thrust on this House. This gallant gentleman will not be injured by language which I venture to say no man has heard without disgust. In the pre- 698 sence of the House of Commons, expressing that feeling of indignation and disgust with which, I am certain, the language by which the hon. Member for Dungarvan has endeavoured to injure the character of this gallant man will be regarded, all I can say is, that the character of Mr. Jenkinson, if it wanted raising, would be raised by these two things—by the noble tribute paid him by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, who knows India as well as any man in this House, and by the vituperation and abuse of the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Home Secretary had omitted to state the one thing which, above all, would complete the fame of Mr. Jenkinson—namely, that Mr. Jenkinson had aroused the enthusiastic admiration of the Home Secretary.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he had heard it said that there was no better evidence of the badness of the case of a disputant than the fact that the disputant became excited, and exhibited symptoms of anger. He should be disposed to say that the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary must have a wretchedly bad case, because both of those right hon. Gentlemen had shown that they were not able to discuss this subject with cool reason, but had given evidence of their being exceedingly great partizans of Mr. Jenkinson. So far as he was concerned, he never had the pleasure of hearing Mr. Jenkinson's name until today, and he was not very much prejudiced against him personally; but he had heard a eulogium of Mr. Jenkinson, quoted from the writings of officials in India; he had heard the criticisms by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell); and he must confess, that taking the matter all in all, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan had made out a much better case than the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the indignation of the Home Secretary had raised the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his estimation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had defended his friend, and if he found it hard that his friend should be abused, he hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would do him (Mr. Callan) justice if he should feel indignant on hearing his constitu- 699 ents abused and ill-treated. He thought the Home Secretary in former times, when he had no case, must have received instructions to abuse the plaintiff's attorney, and no doubt, in the Inferior Courts, he had carried out these instructions. He had shown his capacity for vituperation by abusing the hon. Member for Dungarvan in a manner worthy of Billingsgate. On the 15th of June, when an objection was raised to a clause in the Bill then under consideration, the Home Secretary made an announcement which, he said, he hoped would facilitate the passing of the clause. Having obtained his purpose and every facility for the passing of the clause, he had paid no further attention to the matter. If he had deliberately violated his pledge, or if he had made that pledge without any knowledge that it would be carried out, he was guilty of very improper conduct; and he hoped some statement would be made with reference to the violation of that promise.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is imputing improper motives to the Home Secretary. He has no right to do that.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he imputed no motives whatever. He simply said this pledge was made by the Home Secretary, and it had been violated. He was imputing no motive, and he was not sufficiently a metaphysician to know how a statement of facts could be considered an imputation.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member said the Home Secretary was bound to explain something he had not fulfilled. He then imputed an improper motive to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI am entirely indifferent to any imputation of motive the hon. Member may make upon myself.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he simply mentioned that the pledge had not been fulfilled, but violated. That was the fact, and he only asked the Home Secretary to review the proclamation of County Louth, and to reconsider whether there was any ground for that proclamation.
§ MR. BLAKEsaid, a very important portion of this Vote was now reached, and he thought it might be advisable to report Progress; but before moving that he wished to address a few inquiries to 700 the Home Secretary, in order to ascertain what had been done, or was proposed to be done, in the matter to which he would now draw attention. The next Vote related to the Irish lunatic asylums, the controlling body of which was, perhaps, one of the most important Departments in Ireland, on account of the great number of unfortunate people in Ireland who were confined in asylums in Ireland, and also because Ireland, in common with other parts of the United Kingdom, showed a considerable increase in the number of lunatics. As the House was probably aware, the entire support of the pauper lunatics in Ireland, fell upon the occupying tenants, and it was most essential that the chief department should be carried on vigorously. The head of the Department, Dr. Nugent, was now 90 years of age, and the second Inspector was considerably over 70 years of age. He submitted that it was not right that a gentleman nearly 90 years of age, and another nearly 70 years of age, should continue to have the entire control of this important Department. From time to time assurances had been given that there should be a recasting of the Lunacy Board in Ireland; but years had gone by, and nothing whatever had been done in that direction. He had considerable fault to find with the mode in which the administration of the lunatic asylums was carried on, and since he had returned to Parliament many things he formerly complained of he found still remained unremedied. He asserted positively, though with perfect kindness to the two gentlemen he had named, that the time had arrived when they should retire, but upon as liberal terms as possible. The administration of so important a Department as this ought not to continue in the present hands. Younger men, and men who were better acquainted with modern methods of carrying out a curative system, should be substituted; and he respectfully asked the Chief Secretary to give some information as to what the Government proposed to do in regard to recasting and remodelling the administration of this department.
§ MR. TREVELYANWith regard to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Blake) about the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums, I shall certainly consider it my duty in the next five or six months to 701 inquire into the Public Departments of Ireland. I earnestly hope that in his remarks the hon. Member did not foreshadow his intention to move to report Progress before this Vote is passed. With, regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), I cannot be answerable for every word from the lips of every person in connection with the Prevention of Crime Bill; but I fully recognize the general gist of the observations the hon. Member quoted from the Home Secretary. I likewise fully acknowledge that the intention of the Lord Lieutenant as to the application of this case was something of the nature to which the hon. Member refers. His intention was, that particular districts should return under the ordinary law -when all chance of serious disorder had been extinguished.
§ MR. CALLANNo disorder ever existed in this district.
§ MR. TREVELYANIt is impossible to apply it to a particular district, and it is impossible to give to Parliament the reasons why the Lord Lieutenant applies a particular clause to a particular district. The more so as the Judges' Charges are not sufficient evidence for and against the existence of crime in a particular district. The Lord Lieutenant has very many opportunities of knowing what the dangers are, and sources which cannot come into open Court; but I can assure the hon. Member that, in the spirit of the original intention, the cases of different counties will be carefully inquired into, and certainly, if we consider that there is no sufficient reason for keeping a particular county or town under the proclamation, we shall remove the proclamation. I hope that, after this protracted and certainly very interesting discussion, we may now be allowed to take the Vote.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the county to which, he had referred had never been—at least, for the last 10 years—in a state justifying the application of any repressive measures beyond the ordinary law. He knew that the Chief Secretary had not been able to attend to these matters himself, and the Lord Lieutenant was dependent upon advisers who knew the district. The county of Down, which joined Louth, was not proclaimed. In the county of Armagh two Catholic baronies were proclaimed; but the remainder of the county was not pro- 702 claimed. In the county of Monaghan there was one barony which was eminently Catholic which was proclaimed; but the other portions were not proclaimed. Every Catholic portion of Monaghan and Louth was proclaimed, while the Protestant portions were not. How was it that other counties in Ireland were not proclaimed? When the next General Election came, the opinion of the people as to the way in which this Act was administered would be shown, and every supporter of the Government which unjustly administered the Act would be visited with political annihilation.
§ MR. BLAKEsaid, that on the promise of the Chief Secretary to make personal inquiries into the Departments in Ireland, and the Lunatic Asylums Department amongst them, he would not press for Progress; but he must respectfully warn the right hon. Gentleman that if something was not done before the Session in February next, he should bring the whole question of lunatic asylums under consideration. What the right hon. Gentleman undertook to do he was sure would be done; and, therefore, he was satisfied with the assurance. The next Vote related to the fisheries. Inconsequence of the Prime Minister having absorbed all the days of private Members, he had been obliged to move for the discharge of the Irish Fisheries Bill. He hoped, therefore, he should receive from the Chief Secretary a similar assurance with regard to the fisheries to that respecting the lunatic asylums. There was one most important matter to which he wished to draw attention. Frequent representations had been made by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, during the last 15 years, as to the necessity of having an investigation respecting the fund for carrying out the fisheries. He could positively state that, even if a moderate expenditure had been incurred, the catches of fish would have been increased fifty-fold. It had been proved from the Reports of Inspectors of Fisheries that vast catches of fish had been lost to fishermen in consequence of their not having vessels to send out to bring the fish ashore. He earnestly trusted the right hon. Gentleman, during the Recess, would devote some of his time to investigating the condition of the Irish Fisheries. The right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor in 703 Office (Mr. W. E. Forster) undertook to do so, and he did so. Unfortunately for the fisheries, he left Office before he was able to give the House the benefit of the investigations he made on the subject. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to give the fisheries a part of his attention during the Recess.
§ MR. FINDLATERsaid, he understood that an official in Ireland must be in office 20 years before he was entitled to one-third of his salary as pension; while in England an official could retire, after 15 years' service, upon two-thirds of his salary. That was a great injustice, which ought to be remedied as soon as possible.
§ MR. COURTNEYIt is not so.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that with regard to the Prevention of Crime Act, and the Curfew Clause especially, he would like to know whether the police had been instructed to send up to Dublin Castle a list of all the arrests made, and the results of the inquiries subsequent to the arrests? Was there any objection to give the House every month, or every quarter, a Return showing the people arrested, the result of the prosecutions before the magistrate, and then before the two stipendiary magistrates? He was sure the right hon. Gentleman had no wish that people should be arrested without proper cause; but if newspaper reports were to be believed men had been arrested unnecessarily. For instance, in Rosscrea a man was standing outside his own door, and the police told him to go in; he said he would go in when he liked, whereupon the police took him off to gaol, and kept him there for 24 hours. Now, the Act was passed for the prevention of crime, and he could not believe it was a crime for a man to stand outside his own door, even in Ireland. It was a crime to stand about under suspicious circumstances; but, unfortunately, the police were to be the judges of the suspicious circumstances. He would like to ask the Chief Secretary whether he would issue a Circular to the police telling them where they had evidently taken a wrong view of matters, and telling them also what it was they were expected to do? Certainly it could never be intended that a man should be locked up for 24 hours for simply standing outside his own door. He trusted there would be granted 704 a Return periodically of the number of arrests made, how soon they were brought before the magistrate, and, if they were not discharged by the single magistrate, how soon they were brought before the double-barrelled Court, and what the result had been.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he noticed an item for allowances to Sub-Inspectors of Irish Constabulary, and allowances for 32 sub-constables. Now, these men were detached from the general Police Force; and he wanted to ask the Chief Secretary whether he could say it was a fact that the absence of these men from their duty in their several counties imposed a charge upon those counties in respect of extra police?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that with regard to the hon. Member for Waterford's (Mr. Blake's) remarks on the fisheries, he sympathized with the hon. Member for being obliged, on account of the pressure of circumstances, to withdraw the Bill, in which he took so much interest. He could only repeat what he had previously said—that the question of the Irish Fisheries should have his best consideration. In reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), he might say that all the arrests made under the 11th section of the Prevention of Crime Act were reported under various headings. If a man were taken up under suspicious circumstances and got 14 days hard labour, it would be reported in the usual course. He presumed, that such a man would have had some disguise about him, or some weapon, which would cause the suspicion. All the cases were reported in full to the Chief Secretary's Office, and a very careful watch was kept upon them.
§ MR. HEALYThe right hon. Gentleman says hard labour; they have no power to give hard labour; but simply to imprison.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would look into that case. With regard to the last remark of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor') about the police who were transferred from one county to another, he had to say that if the county from which they were transferred required to have its quota of police made up, it would be made up before any extra police could be charged for. The county into which they were sent would, he presumed, be 705 charged with extra police if it was so ordered.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that a county would require to have its quota made up before extra police could be charged upon it. When last year he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) maintained there was no power to charge for extra police until the quota of the county was made up, the Chief Secretary (Mr. W. E. Forster) said the Government had such right, and insisted upon using it.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that in reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), a distinct pledge was given by the Chief Secretary that extra police would not be charged on the county until the full quota was made up. With regard to the question raised by himself, he was sorry to say he must trouble the right hon. Gentleman again, because he had not answered it. He did not ask him whether returns were made up to the Chief Secretary; but what he wanted to know was whether the arrests and the results of them would be reported to Parliament? Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to present to Parliament periodically a Return showing the number of arrests made under suspicious circumstances, how soon the person was brought before the magistrate, what the result was before the single magistrate, whether the man was referred to two stipendiary magistrates, and then what was the punishment awarded? He would like to know what suspicious circumstances were; but, of course, he could not ask too much from the Irish police.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought the question raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) deserved a reply at the hands of the Chief Secretary or the Attorney General for Ireland.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he presumed that the reason why no answer was made was that hard labour had been imposed where there was no power to impose it.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that imprisonment with hard labour could be awarded under the 11th section in conjunction with the 21st section. In the course of the debates upon the Act in its progress through the House, it was laid down that certain Returns were to be presented to Parliament. He was 706 very unwilling, during this Session, to make any absolute promise as to the Returns to be presented next Session. Certainly, when the time came, he was disposed to consider very favourably the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy).
§ MR. FINDLATERsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury said, a moment or two ago, that the statement he (Mr. Findlater) made with regard to the officers of lunatic asylums in Ireland was not correct. Now, he found that on the 11th of July the Chief Secretary for Ireland was asked by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) whether it was not the case that officials in England were entitled to retire, after 15 years' service, on two-thirds of their salary; whereas the same officials in Ireland had to serve 20 years, and then could only retire on one-third of their salary. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary stated that the facts were correctly set forth in the question, and that the matter was regulated by the Superannuation Act of 1859. On referring to the Act he found it was the fact that a man must serve 40 years in Ireland before he could receive two-thirds of his salary on retirement.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not question the fact with regard to Ireland, but in regard to England.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 4: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 313.)
§ (3.) £1,203, to complete the sum for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought they ought now to report Progress. They had been sitting for 10 hours, and, although the number of Votes taken had not been large, they had disposed of several important subjects. The Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office, considering the present state of affairs and the recent enactment, was one of considerable importance, and the Government might congratulate themselves upon having obtained it in so little time. He did not suppose there was any objection to the Vote for the Office of Charitable Donations and Bequests; and hon. Members would be glad to let the Government take it without discussion, if they 707 would postpone the remaining Votes of the Class.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ MR. TREVELYANmoved to report Progress; but hoped that for the rest of the Session hon. Gentlemen would allow the Committee to make substantial progress.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Trevelyan,)—put, and agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, there seemed to be some misunderstanding as to the hour of Sitting to-morrow, some hon. Members being under the impression that it was 4 o'clock, and others that it was 2 o'clock.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought it had been decided that there should be no more 2 o'clock Sittings.