§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that just before the House adjourned for the Easter Recess they had a discussion on the question of the extra police tax in the City of Cork; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was good enough to say that he would communicate with the Corporation of Cork, and ascertain what their views were with regard to the matter. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had communicated with the Corporation on the subject and what the result had been?
§ MR. TREVELYANThe hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork has stated his case so briefly that I shall certainly not go into any detail, or repeat any of the arguments or statements I made use of on a previous occasion. I shall confine myself to answering the question the hon. Member has put. After the last discussion, I at once communicated with the authorities in Dublin, who put themselves into communication with the Local Authorities in Cork on the question. No time was lost. At first there was a slight misunderstanding of my object; and I received, on the 17th of April, a carefully drawn Report from Captain Plunkett, recapitulating the reasons why the Police Force had not been diminished. On the 24th of April, I communicated with him again, asking him to read very carefully what had passed in the House of Commons, and saying that I wanted to have the view of the Corporation as to the number of police necessary to do duty in the City, and that that was the best way to get a reliable opinion. He put himself into communication with the Municipality of Cork, and received a letter from, I presume, the Town Clerk, saying—
I am directed by the Mayor to acquaint you, with reference to the conversation he had with you on Monday in reference to the Constabulary Force, that he does not feel warranted in consulting the Corporation. If you wish him to do so, and will give him a written statement of the points you want, he will do so on Friday next.Captain Plunkett answered that the point on which he wished for an expression of opinion was as to the number of police necessary to perform duty in 1118 the City of Cork; and, on the 2nd of May, he received a letter to the effect that the Town Council declined to express any opinion as to what number of police were necessary to perform the duties in the City of Cork. It appears that these letters referred to an interview that Captain Plunkett had with the Mayor of Cork on the 28th of April; so that there can be no misunderstanding at all, I think, on the part of the Local Authorities as to the desire of the Irish Government to place themselves in communication with them on the subject. Not being able to obtain the opinion of the Mayor and Corporation on this point, the Irish Government were again thrown back on their own officers; and they came, and came very reluctantly, to the conclusion that it was necessary to maintain the present force. What burden that force places on the City of Cork I will not proceed to state to the Committee, as the hon. Member has not expressed any desire to review the arguments used the other day. I have stated the result of the negotiations.
§ MR. PARNELLconfessed he was very much disappointed at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He had been in hopes that, in consequence of what took place in the House on the last occasion he brought the matter forward, the Government would have seen their way to remove the extra police in Cork. It appeared from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the extra force in Cork was to be retained for an indefinite period at the expense of the ratepayers. It was very much to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not, through his own Office, communicated with the Local Authority in Cork—that was to say, with the Mayor —in order to obtain his opinion on the matter. It would appear that, owing to the method chosen by Captain Plunkett, and the very scanty communication which he made to the Town Clerk, that no impression was conveyed to that functionary that his communication was really from the Irish Executive, or in reference to any information which the Irish Executive wished to obtain as to the views of the Corporation. He (Mr. Parnell) was informed that the stipendiary magistrate, Captain Plunkett, happened to meet the Town Clerk one day in the street, and he asked him, verbally, what he thought would be the number of 1119 police required for the City of Cork; but he did not make the inquiry in such a way as to indicate that he was seeking for information on the part of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Irish Executive. The Mayor gave the reply the right hon. Gentleman had read, and it was followed by a more definite inquiry in writing, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, from Captain Plunkett; but neither did this written inquiry convey the, impression to the Corporation of Cork that the information was sought by the Government. He could not help thinking that the Government had acted very hastily, mid not in accordance with the spirit of the pledge—though they might have acted in accordance with the letter of it—they had given in dealing with this matter so summarily. The Corporation of Cork, he thought, were entitled to the courtesy of a communication from the right hon. Gentleman on a matter of such importance. Captain Plunkett was a person who had made himself very obnoxious to the Local Authority, and, in connection with this matter, had communicated with the Corporation in such a way as not to make them aware of what the inquiry really was, and the Irish Executive, in choosing this means of making the communication, had acted in such a way as to show that they did not desire a peaceful settlement of the question.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had left out three lines of his letter to Captain Plunkett; and, as there was what he considered an unjust impression on the hon. Gentleman's mind that he had not conveyed to Captain Plunkett a fair sense of the importance of the matter, if the hon. Gentleman wished he would read them. He had conveyed to Captain Plunkett the exact sense of the promise he had made to the hon. Member for the City of Cork.
§ MR. GRAYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay on the Table the document from which he had just quoted? It would be interesting to see the exact terms of the communication made to the Corporation. It struck him that the terms of the question put to Captain Plunkett almost necessitated the reply made by the Corporation. If Captain Plunkett had desired to carry out the spirit of the undertaking entered into by the right hon. Gentleman with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the 1120 City of Cork, the question he would have put to the Mayor and Corporation would have been—"In your opinion, is the extra police force necessary for the preservation of the peace in Cork?" That, he was told, was not the question that Captain Plunkett asked at all. He had asked them to pronounce an abstract opinion as to the precise number of police required in Cork City. The Corporation of Cork had nothing to do with the police; they did not appoint them, and had no control over them; and he thought it most unfair to ask them to pronounce officially as to the number of police required. Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to have the question put in the other form to the Corporation? If he did, probably he would then be able to get a more satisfactory reply.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the letter to the Corporation of Cork neither conveyed what the right hon. Gentleman directed Captain Plunkett to convey, nor did it convey what the right hon. Gentleman had said what he would inquire about. Here was the letter, the only written or formal communication which was sent—
Sir,—With reference to your letter of this day, the only point on which I should be glad to have an expression of opinion from the Mayor and Corporation is as to what number of police are necessary to perform the duties in the City of Cork. I am, Sir, your obedient servant," &c.The Committee would observe that Captain Plunkett did not convey, in this letter to the Corporation, that the information was sought by the Irish Government. He simply said that he required the information for himself. He (Mr. Parnell) could only gay that he regretted very much that what, at one time, promised to furnish an amicable settlement of this question, should have been frustrated by the extraordinary manner in which Captain Plunkett chose to carry out the mission confided to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, he had some remarks to make; but was reluctant to intervene at that moment. The right hon. Gentleman had changed the discussion to another subject of an important character; and if it were his intention to finish that discussion he would be happy to give way to him.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was perfectly ready to communicate again with 1121 Captain Plunkett, and ask him to write another letter to the Mayor and Corporation of Cork, requesting them to confer with him as to the numbers and disposition of the Cork police force, and, at the same time, to intimate to them that he was desired to do so by the Chief Secretary.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he was willing to allow the matter to rest where it was until they knew the result of the right hon. Gentleman's further communication with Captain Plunkett.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, that while the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was in a yielding mood on the subject of the police force in the City of Cork, he was anxious to remind him that there was a difficulty of a still more acute character in reference to the police force of the City of Limerick. There was an unparalleled struggle going on between the Mayor and Corporation of that city and the Government with reference to the compulsory police force stationed there. The Court of Queen's Bench had issued a mandamus for the payment of £460 for the police tax; and, among other points, he believed there were even threats held out that the members of the Corporation would be imprisoned if they refused payment. Now, the Corporation and citizens of Limerick were firmly determined to resist this tax, and to allow the Corporation property, if necessary, to be seized and sold rather than pay 1d. of the sum demanded. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was a proper course to enter upon a conflict of this kind with the elected representatives of a great city, and for no other purpose that he could perceive except that of gratifying some local organization, or of saving £460 to the Consolidated Fund? He believed it was £1,500,000 annually which the country readily paid for maintaining military possession of Ireland. An extra police force had been foisted on the people of Limerick by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, against the repeated protests of the Corporation, the citizens, and even the magistrates, who had several times declared that there was no necessity for it whatever—at all events, from a municipal point of view. It was perfectly well known that the police were a purely military force, and utterly useless for municipal purposes; and the Corporation of Limerick did 1122 not want to have in the city a large body of men lounging about the streets— star-gazing, for aught he knew—for they had nothing else to do; and they had even been obliged to employ a force of watchmen to protect the property of the citizens. Although the city was one of the quietest, the police had done their worst to torment the people; they assaulted them in the streets; and it was not more than two years ago that they had shot them down with buckshot. Such was the work which the police were doing for their money; and he put it to the Government whether it was worth while for them to create a bitterness, which was always left behind, by the continuance of a struggle of this kind? They might rest perfectly satisfied that the Corporation would have the support of the citizens and the sympathy of every Irishman in seeing this thing out to the end, and in resisting the payment of a tax which they regarded simply as one of the worst remnants of the unfortunate rule of Mr. Clifford Lloyd in Ireland. He was happy to observe that there were some indications that the Government were not inclined to drive the people to extremities in respect of the extra police tax. Already the extra police force had been withdrawn from some districts; and he congratulated the Government on the course they had taken so far. He thought they were showing signs that they perceived the impolicy and unwisdom of keeping open these old sores; that they were beginning to understand that there was nothing in. the state of Ireland to demand the presence of these extra policemen in the various districts; and that the issue of any struggle which they might have with the people on that ground was not likely to be conducive to peace or good feeling in Ireland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, while he was in the mood to rid the people of Cork of their extra police force, would also be able to hold out some hope that evening of an amicable termination of the dispute, which otherwise unquestionably would have to go on to the bitter end. He trusted that he would not force the people of Limerick to continue a struggle that, whichever way it might end—and the chances were not altogether in favour of the Government—would leave nothing but bitterness behind, and that 1123 the right hon. Gentleman would make the same announcement with regard to Limerick as he had done in the case of the City of Cork.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he hoped to get something in the nature of an explanation of what appeared to be the inexplicable course of action adopted by the Government in the case of Mr. Preston, clerk in the Land Commission. The case was not that of an individual; it touched the general policy of the Government in Ireland, and it raised the large and important question whether persons in the service of the State and drawing incomes from the public purse contributed to by the people of all political opinions, should be allowed to ally themselves with Party organizations. On the 8th of January last, there appeared in the Dublin Press an advertisement issued by the officers of the Orange Society and addressed to the Loyalists of the United Kingdom; it was signed by 100 persons of consideration in Ireland, all of them members of the Orange Order, including Earls, Viscounts, and military officers of various ranks and Members of both Houses of Parliament, and one of the names subscribed was that of Mr. Preston. That gentleman held the office of Inspector of Tithe Rents, and for the discharge of that office he received a liberal salary. This appeal to the Loyalists said that by the dismissal of Lord Rossmore from the Magistracy, the Government had insulted Irish Loyalists, and it went on to say that the conduct of the Government in dismissing him demanded a most severe rebuke; it called for sympathy for Lord Rossmore and disapproved of the conduct of the Chief Secretary. It was bad enough that persons not in the employ of the State should endeavour to set class against class and to incite them to strife and disorder, but surely it was intolerable that a clerk in the Public Service, drawing a salary from the State, should be allowed to join the persons he had referred to in reviling the Executive of the country. Lord Rossmore was a man so false to his duty as a magistrate, and so false to his duty to the Queen, that instead of preserving the peace, he led a body of men into an orderly meeting with the view of producing a deadly conflict—and that was the man whom Mr. Preston endeavoured to exalt into a hero upon whom posterity might look back with pride. It was on his account 1124 that Mr. Preston took upon himself to condemn the Government for their necessary action in dismissing him. The date of the Manifesto, the 8th of January, was important, because seven days before, that was to say, on New Tear's Day, the tactics of Lord Rossmore and of the whole truculent and disorderly Orange faction had reached their culmination at Dromore, where they assembled and be threatened the peace of the locality that the police were obliged to chase them from the ground, in which pursuit one of the unfortunate men lost his life. One would have thought that such an event might have been relied upon to quiet the most factious and disorderly of persons; but a week afterwards the name of Mr. Preston appeared on a public Manifesto in which the Government were rebuked for endeavouring to preserve the public peace, and Lord Rossmore was alluded to as a hero. As soon as possible after the meeting he (Mr. Sexton) raised the subject of the conduct of Mr. Preston by Question in that House. On the 11th of February he asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if Mr. Preston, whoso name was appended to that scandalous Manifesto, was the same person who held office in the service of the State as clerk in the Land Commission; and, if so, whether he would be continued in the service? To this the right hon. Gentleman made a satisfactory reply by stating that—
The Land Commissioners were not aware till now that Mr. Preston was a member of the committee referred to in the Question. They strongly disapprove of his conduct in having become a member of that committee, and they have called on him to resign his situation in the Land Commission., Accordingly, Mr. Preston has placed his resignation in their hands."— (3 Hansard, [284] 423.)He (Mr. Sexton) considered that to be a rational solution of the question, because it did not seem to him to be possible that the Government should tolerate in its employ a man who condemned its action and made a hero of Lord Boss-more. He was afterwards informed that Mr. Preston continued to be in the Office of the Land Commissioners, and he pointed out that on the very day after the reply was given to his Question there appeared in the Dublin Press an article well calculated to intimidate the Commissioners and to induce the Government to retrace their steps. The article, among other things, said that the Go- 1125 vernment were in such a hurry to act that they had not inquired into the extent of their own powers, and it went on to say that Ministers were acting thus in order to bid high for the Parnellite vote. The whole article was to the effect that they had wrongly dismissed Mr. Preston, but that they had not removed those soldiers and magistrates who held up Lord Rossmore to admiration, and charged the Government with inconsistency. The Government had adopted the evil course of restoring Mr. Preston to office. When he ascertained that the article in The Daily Express had produced that effect—namely, that the Government were guided by the imputations launched against them, he inquired of the right hon. Gentleman whether or not Mr. Preston had been removed from the Service? And his reply was that—The Land Commission, thinking that Mr. Preston did not understand his tenure of office, gave him an opportunity of withdrawing his resignation, of which he availed himself. The matter having subsequently been brought under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant, without whose assent Mr. Preston could not be removed from office, His Excellency conferred with the Land Commissioners, when it was decided, having regard to the fact that Mr. Preston had been in the service of the State for 38 years without a complaint having been made against him, and to the fact that he never had anything to do with the action of the committee, upon which his name was placed without his authority, that the case would be fairly dealt with if Mr. Preston were reprimanded instead of being dismissed."—(3 Hansard, [285] 218.)Now, he asked the right hon. Gentleman to get up and repeat that statement. Did he mean to ask the Committee to believe that Mr. Preston was not consulted before his name was placed upon the committee? Why, he had already pointed out that the committee was a constellation of distinguished persons; it was composed of the most distinguished Orangemen in Ireland; and was he to be told that 100 persons of influence and position cared so much about Mr. Preston that they furtively put his name on the committee, and that he remained for a whole month after the advertisement appeared in ignorance of the fact; that his name was being used to discredit the Executive and to do honour to a subordinate magistrate who had been dismissed for misconduct from the Commission of the Peace? He asked the Committee to ob- 1126 serve the conditions upon which Mr. Preston was restored to office—Provided that he undertook to withdraw his name from the committee.… and, further, that he expressed regret at having allowed his name to appear."—[Ibid.]That was one of the most extraordinary contradictions that had ever been recorded in the annals of official life in. Ireland. The Lord Lieutenant first said that Mr. Preston was ignorant that his name had appeared as a member of the committee, and then that he was restored to office on condition that he expressed regret for that which, according to his own plea, he had never done. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to explain that to the Committee. He asked how the Lord Lieutenant, having imposed upon Mr. Preston a condition incompatible with his own plea, could be rescued from the suspicion of having acted on a plea which was obviously false? He remembered that one of the most valued public servants that had ever been brought into the service of the State in Ireland, and who was concerned in the issue of a pamphlet which contained two or three phrases objected to by the Government, had been treated in a very different manner. The Land Commission called upon him to send in his resignation; but they never afterwards asked him to express any regret, nor did the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland restore him to his office. His contention was, that Mr. Preston deliberately put forward a false plea, which the Lord Lieutenant had accepted in order to protect a truculent Orangeman; that Mr. Preston was aware of the use that had been made of Iris name, and that the Lord Lieutenant must have been cognizant of that fact. He stigmatized the whole transaction as scandalous, and he believed that it would De of evil influence on the public opinion in Ireland.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, there were in the Public Service persons whom that House could fairly trust; among them were the officers of the Executive who had had this matter in hand. He protested against these attacks upon absent individuals as being neither fair, honourable, nor just; and he put it to he Committee to say whether the charges made by the hon. Member for Sligo were not, to use his own language, absolutely scandalous.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, lie was bound to state, in reply to the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), that the complaint which he had brought forward was, perhaps, of a less serious nature than the Committee, from his speech, would be led to imagine. The facts wore, that the proportion of cost paid by Irish towns in support of the police force was not greater than the payment made for the services of the police in English towns. According to the last Return, it appeared that for the extra men the charge was £344 12s. 6d. In addition to that, the town of Limerick kept a force of local police, the exact number of which he did not know; but, taking them at 20 in number, the cost would be about £1,300 a-year. Against this he would take the town of Northampton, for instance, which was about the same size as the city of Limerick. While the city of Limerick paid £314 to the staff of the 10 men of the Constabulary, and paid likewise for the service of the 20 local police, the town of Northampton paid for its police £2,846. There were other large towns in England in which the payment from local rates for the service of the police was very much larger than that paid by the Irish towns. Though hon. Members might say the Irish Constabulary were a military body, used for political purposes, he did not think that the police of the streets was as efficiently performed in England. ["Oh, oh !"] Well, that was his opinion; and certainly the police of the Irish streets was performed at a very much less cost to the country than the police of the English streets was. He had got a Return of the cost of the police in certain counties. In Staffordshire, in England, which had a population of 770,000, £32,000 a-year was paid from the local rates for the police. The collective population of Cork, Kilkenny, and Tipperary was 3,000 or 4,000 greater than that of Staffordshire, and those three counties combined paid for police not £32,000, but something under £24,000 a-year. The hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had referred to the tendency on the part of the Irish Government to reduce the police where possible. Although the counties he (Mr. Trevelyan) had named paid so much less than English counties of the same size, an application had been made to His Excellency the Lord Lieu- 1128 tenant, since the Return, from which he (Mr. Trevelyan) had quoted, was prepared, for the reduction of the extra police in the county of Cork by 44, and in the county of Kilkenny by 50. The Irish Government were extremely anxious to reduce the extra police wherever it was possible; but he was bound to say that the only process by which the extra police could be withdrawn was the process of a staunch maintenance of the law. In the case of the controversy with the city of Limerick, the law was on the side of the Executive Government, and they could not withdraw the claim which they thought they were bound to make on behalf of the State. If ever the time came when they could reduce the charge for the extra police, they would do so; but, from what he heard, he was inclined to think that the peace of the streets of Limerick would be kept much cheaper if the conservation of that peace were placed more in the hands of the Constabulary. It was certainly somewhat curious that, while the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) urged the Corporation of Limerick to resist the law—he (Mr. Trevelyan) thought he might put that interpretation on the hon. Gentleman's words—the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) should be very much exercised because a public servant who had joined in giving a testimonial to a magistrate who had resisted the law, had been let off much too cheaply. The Government were trying, to the best of their ability, to do justice, tempered with mercy, all round, and he could not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) that the hon. Member for Sligo had continued the series of attacks which had lately been made upon Mr. Eyre Preston. As a matter of fact, this was the first opportunity the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) had had of raising the question otherwise than by Questions. Well, the story was simply this. Mr. Eyre Preston's name appeared on a very improper Manifesto, which he (Mr. Trevelyan) had not by him at the present moment, but the impropriety of which he was quite willing to acknowledge to the full. If he recollected aright, it called for funds to erect an Orange Hall in Dublin, in commemoration of Lord Rossmore's resistance of the Irish Executive. The hon. Member for Sligo 1129 called the attention of the Government to the matter, and they referred it to the Land Commissioners. The Land Commissioners called upon Mr. Eyre Preston for an explanation, and the one he gave was so unsatisfactory in their opinion that they removed him from the Land Commission. Subsequently, it was brought to the knowledge of the Land Commissioners that they could not remove Mr. Eyre Preston without the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant. They communicated with Mr. Eyre Preston, and suggested to him the withdrawal of his resignation. It then became necessary for the Lord Lieutenant to go into the subject de novo, and to determine whether Mr. Eyre Preston's conduct had been such that loss of office ought to be enforced against him. Mr. Eyre Preston's defence was this—
In the year 1853 I became a member of an Orange Lodge, and I have so continued to the present time. I have never supposed, nor heard it said, that my being what is called an Orangeman was in any way inconsistent with my position as a Civil servant; and indeed, in my interview with the Commissioners on Monday, I did not understand them to make any such suggestion. I have, moreover, never been a prominent member of the Body. I have not taken part in public demonstrations, and although I entertain strong political views, I have not even joined a Political Club, nor made myself conspicuous as a politician. In the month of December last, I received a Circular (which I enclose) stating that the object of providing in Dublin an Orange Hall was under consideration at the recent meeting of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and that a committee had been appointed to make the necessary arrangements to promote the object in view. A list of the proposed committee, which included my name, was given, and the persons so named were requested to act. I know nothing of the project referred to in the Circular beyond what it disclosed. The Commissioners will see that it is a document of the most innocent character, and contains no political allusion of any kind. Assuming that my name had been introduced by way of a compliment to my having been so long connected with the Body, I wrote thanking the honorary secretaries for the honour that had been done me, but at the same time intimating that my avocations would prevent me from giving much assistance. I never attended or acted on the Committee, and from that time I never heard, directly or indirectly, of its doings until I saw some day about the middle of January, in a newspaper, the advertisement to which the Commissioners referred in our interview. I do not usually look at advertisements, and my seeing the one in question arose from the accidental circumstance that in the copy of the newspaper which I was reading it was printed immediately before the leading article. I glanced at it hastily; I observed that it contained a reference to Lord Rossmore, con- 1130 demning the action of the Government, but I did not further note the motive or character of the reference. I also saw that my name was included in the long list, but it never occurred to me that that circumstance made me responsible for a document which I had never authorized and about which I knew nothing whatever. The matter brought thus to my notice accidentally and quickly, passed as quickly from my mind. It was not so much that I considered it of no importance as that it never became a subject of thought or consideration with me at all. I did not afterwards hear it referred to, and it was only brought back to recollection upon seeing on Friday last a paragraph in a newspaper on the subject. When speaking to you as the Secretary of the Commissioners on Saturday last, I stated, as you may remember, that I was ready to at once withdraw my name from the committee. I would have taken this step before if the matter had ever engaged my attention; but the Commissioners can, I am sure, understand how an advertisement, even under the circumstances I have mentioned, and never made the subject of discussion or conversation, would produce no impression on the mind. I have now, at too great length, perhaps, but with the most perfect accuracy, stated all the circumstances which, as far as I am aware, bear on the charge against me. It will be seen that it is not a case in which a Civil servant has taken part in, or countenanced by any overt act, a public censure on the Executive. I have never considered to what an extent an official would be justified in so acting, inasmuch as my own opinion is, and has been, that it would be bad taste in a person, holding as I do a subordinate position in a Public Department, to interfere at all in such a matter, and accordingly I have always avoided doing so. If I had not seen the advertisement, I presume that the Commissioners would, under the circumstances I have stated, have held me blameless. If this be so, I would submit that my default has at the most amounted to mere mental carelessness or blindness of perception leading me not to appreciate the effect of my name being printed along with many others under an advertisement at which I had given a hasty glance. I am 62 years of age, my official salary forms a substantial portion of my income; although well able to perform my Departmental work, it would be hopeless for me at my time of life to look for new employment. I would ask the Commissioners to remember that dismissal would entail a far heavier punishment on me than on a younger man. I would ask them also to consider my past professional and official career, free from stain or imputation. In conclusion, I would press on them, humbly and respectfully, but very earnestly, to say whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the case is one which would justify the heads of a Department in removing from his office an old and long-tried public servant.Mr. Eyre Preston had been in the Public Service for 38 years; and with that letter before him, it was the duty of the Lord Lieutenant to say whether, in the interest of the public, it was necessary to inflict the punishment of dis- 1131 missal in the case of a man who showed such great contrition. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) compared this case to the dismissal of Mr. Fottrell. With the dismissal of Mr. Fottrell, he (Mr. Trevelyan) had nothing to do, and at the time it took place Lord Spencer was not Lord Lieutenant. He could not enter into any discussion as to whether Mr. Fottrell was wisely or unwisely dismissed. Throughout the whole of this Lord Rossmore business, it had been the desire of the Executive not to punish as long as they could get a complete and thorough acknowledgment from the person who had misbehaved himself, that he recognized the fact that he had done wrong, because in times of political excitement people were apt to take steps which were not justifiable, but which after all might not be absolutely criminal. If in the case of the public servants who attacked the Government on account of their conduct to wards Lord Rossmore, there was ample and complete contrition, and a promise given that their course of wrong conduct would not be repeated, the Executive Government were glad to excuse them. It would be a very different thing if such conduct were repeated. The circumstances of the last Recess in Ireland were very novel, and many men in public positions acted under the impression that the action they took was quite permissible. They now knew it was not permissible, and that a repetition of their conduct would be visited with very serious consequences. The official letter which contained the submission of Mr. Eyre Preston was dated the 23rd of February, 1884, and in it he said—I have to express my obligation for yours of the 22nd instant, and beg to state that I have already withdrawn my name from the committee of the Orange Hall, and am ready to give my withdrawal such publicity as the Commissioners may require. I quite disavow any responsibility for the terms of the appeal for funds for erecting such a building; and I beg again respectfully to repeat that I was ignorant of such appeal, or of the intention to issue it, until I saw it in print. I regret that, being, as I am, a public servant, I allowed my name to be placed on the committee; and I undertake that I shall never in future, so long as I hold office in the Land Commission, take any public or prominent part in political matters.He (Mr. Trevelyan) recognized the public spirit in which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had brought this question forward; but, nevertheless, he 1132 humbly submitted to the Committee that the Government had taken adequate means of expressing their sentiments.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the purpose he had in view in bringing forward the question had been tolerably well served by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; his purpose was far removed from the gratification of private spleen which was attributed to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin County (Colonel King-Harman). He (Mr. Sexton) never saw Mr. Eyre Preston; he had not the slightest personal knowledge of that gentleman; and therefore he thought he might take credit to himself of being actuated by public spirit in bringing this question before the Committee. His only object was to teach public officials of every grade in Ireland that they were obliged to maintain the peace impartially. After Mr. Eyre Pros-ton had addressed the Land Commission in language of such emphatic contradiction, he (Mr. Sexton) would scarcely have thought of troubling the Committee by introducing this question. He had brought the matter forward, however, because subsequently Mr. Eyre Preston was restored to the Commission, on the ground that he expressed regret for having done that which previously he said he had not done. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would undertake to lay the Correspondence on the subject upon the Table in the shape of a Parliamentary Paper, he (Mr. Sexton) would be perfectly ready not to pursue the subject further.
§ COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, an expression fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary of which he thought he had a right to ask for an explanation. The right hon. Gentleman said that during the last year persons holding positions in the Civil Service had criticized the conduct of the Government in a manner which they now knew was not permissible, and that if the criticism were repeated, it would be visited with condign punishment. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that gentlemen holding positions in the Civil Service—and he (Colonel King-Harman) believed magistrates and Lord Lieutenants of Counties were supposed to be engaged in the Civil Service—were precluded from criticizing, in any manner whatever, the action of the Irish Government? Did 1133 the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that men were to be absolutely debarred from all liberty of speech, from all liberty of expressing themselves in the Press, because they held Commissions of the Peace, and because they tried to do their duty as far as their lights allowed them? He maintained that a more gross attack upon the liberty of the subject was never made in the House of Commons, and he called upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to explain himself—to say whether magistrates and others were to be muzzled, so to speak, in any case where the conduct of the Government, or any Member of the Government, was concerned? Were the Government to be allowed to go scatheless, and was everything they did to be deemed incapable of criticism? He never heard a more extraordinary expression of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary might as well say that Members of Parliament were to be muzzled. Were Members of the Government to do just what they pleased without remonstrance? He called upon the Chief Secretary to explain what he meant, and to say whether he intended his words as a threat?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had stated in the strongest terms that it was the opinion of the Lord Chancellor and his (Mr. Trevelyan's) own opinion, and also that of the Lord Lieutenant and of the Land Commissioners, that magistrates and public servants could, of course, belong to political associations and express political opinions. If circumstances recurred in which magistrates broke the peace instead of keeping it—if magistrates and public servants supported and endorsed by their conduct breakers of the peace—they would do so on their own responsibility, and they would find that the Government would consider that responsibility was not a light one.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, that no one who had perused the recent speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) and his Friends would feel much apprehension that their liberty of speech was in much danger. He (Mr. O'Brien) attempted to catch the Chairman's eye a few minutes ago to express regret that he had left anything to the sense of justice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He would not repeat the blunder. The right hon. Gen- 1134 tleman had treated the Committee that night to another of his delusive parallels between the contributions from local sources in England for the maintenance of the police force and the local contributions in Ireland for the maintenance of the police. The right hon. Gentleman well knew, or, if he did not know, every man, woman, and child in Ireland could tell him, that the difference was that in English towns the police were the people's servants, but in Irish towns the police were the people's masters. The Irish people were perfectly willing to pay their police as the English people did, if Parliament would give them some control over the police. But Parliament dared not give the people that control, but paid the police themselves, in order to keep the people in subjection, and then were surprised if the people did not submit tamely. The right hon. Gentleman made exactly the same reply that night with reference to Limerick that he made with regard to the question of the extra police in Cork, which was raised by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). His hon. Friend retorted by telling the farmers of Ireland that they were fools to pay 1d. of the police tax, and as soon as the constituencies seemed inclined to take his hon. Friend's advice the Irish Government showed a disposition to remove the cause of quarrel. It was a curious circumstance that wherever the people had shown a resolute spirit the Government had seen reason to withdraw the extra police force. There was the case of Monaniny, and there were numerous cases in Kerry where the Government had anticipated resistance. The people of Castle Jordan, however, instead of resisting the tax, resorted to Petitions and to correspondence with the Castle authorities, and they received nothing but snubs from Mr. Jenkinson for their pains. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said he (Mr. O'Brien) had advised the people of Limerick to resist the law. He (Mr. O'Brien) was sorry to say the Irish people had not the power to resist a good deal that was done in the name of law; if they had he might speak in a different tone. All he asked the people of Limerick to do was to exercise their legal right of passive resistance; and he thought that after the 1135 proceedings of that night—after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman— the people of Limerick would learn that if they wanted to win like the people of Monaniny had won, they must imitate the people of Monaniny.
§ MR. W. REDMONDdesired to have a more satisfactory explanation from the Chief Secretary; but as the Committee were not likely to get a satisfactory reply with reference to the police in Limerick, he would like to call attention to the conduct of the police in the borough which he represented (Wexford). While he was away he was elected to represent that borough, and certain gentlemen went there to represent his interests and the interests of his Party. He had no more claim on the confidence of the people than any ordinary individual, and he had no more claim on the protection of the police; but what happened? Wexford was one of the most peaceful towns and counties in Ireland. Crime was altogether unknown, and the people were most peace-loving, and yet a large body of police were sent down during the election. Why? Did they expect a riot? If so, who were the people who would make a riot? The large majority of the people were of one way of thinking, and there had never been any breaches of the peace during any election, and no assaults committed on the unpopular candidate and his friends. Notwithstanding that the town was most peaceful, a large body of police were drafted down. The narrow streets of the town were crowded with police, and not ordinary police as Englishmen might understand them, but police who were practically soldiers, armed cap-a-pie with rifles and cartridges and bayonets, and the people going to the election were very much irritated by the presence of these police, who occupied a commanding position in the town, where crowds assembled to learn the result of the polling. They were obstructed by the police, and they naturally resented the insult. They had no intention of committing a breach of the peace; they only wished to exercise their legitimate right to see how the election had gone. The result was that the police came into contact with the people, and they charged upon the people. Blood was shed like water, and 26 policemen, were so severely injured that they had to be sent into 1136 hospital to have their wounds attended to. He did not mention this because he had no sympathy for the police; on the contrary, he only wished to point out that the Government were not only doing injury to the police in Ireland, but to the police themselves, in drafting them unnecessarily into peaceful districts. After this collision between the people and the police, Wexford was crowded with extra police; but he was happy to say they had now been withdrawn, because they had proved to be unnecessary. There was just as little necessity then for these extra police as there was now. He did not think there was any better way of judging when extra police were necessary in any town than by taking the opinion of the Corporation, who were a representative body elected by the people. The Corporation of Limerick were unanimous in the opinion that the extra police in that city were quite unnecessary. There was no riot or crime of any kind in the city; and yet in the face of that fact, and of the protestations of the Corporation, the Government and the Lord Lieutenant and the officers of Dublin Castle, who know nothing about the requirements of the district, sent a largo force of police there, and when the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) came and asked for some explanation of the matter, or for a pledge that the Chief Secretary would inquire into it, what was the answer he got? The right hon. Gentleman, assuming, he supposed, that Irish Members were altogether ignorant of the people of Great Britain, in reply to the suggestion that the extra police should be withdrawn, gave a very elaborate and what would, no doubt under certain circumstances, be a highly interesting account of certain statistics in Great Britain. He gave some statistics relating to the town of Northampton; but there was no parallel between the police force in Northampton and in Limerick and other Irish cities. And the right hon. Gentleman, in support of his statement, pointed out that the police duty, and especially street duty, was performed more cheaply in Limerick than in Northampton. He would, however, venture to point out that in regard to street duty the police had little or nothing to do in Ireland. If the police in Ireland were only required to perform what was called 1137 street duty, one-twentieth of the number of police would be sufficient: but the police in Ireland were not used so much for keeping the peace, as for keeping the people down. If the right hon. Gentleman would not give a satisfactory answer to the case put by the hon. Member for Mallow, he would remind the Committee that, in the long run, that course might not prove well for the Government in Ireland, or for the conduct of proceedings in that House. Perhaps it was not very interesting for English Gentlemen to listen to Irish Members at all, imagining they were there only for the purpose of Obstruction; but they were there to express the wishes of the people who had gent them there. In such matters as this they would express the opinions of the people, if they had to keep the House up all night, and if they did not get a satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman, it would not be so well for the proceedings of the House in the long run.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged that the Government which he represented had not done their duty with regard to the magistrates in the North of Ireland, and at the same time he had promised to reform his ways in future; but he would like also to have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman would follow out his duty in another direction—namely, with regard to the packing of juries by the Solicitor General in Ireland. He wished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of his obtaining honest juries for trying people on political or semi-political charges. Irish Members had constantly to draw attention to the fact of honest men being condemned for offences of which they were perfectly innocent. In some cases that went so far that those men were executed. This was an exceedingly awkward state of things, and he appealed to the Chief Secretary to say that in future he would give instructions to the Law Officers and those administering justice in Ireland that, so far as possible, they would get impartial juries for these trials, and not convict persons who were clearly innocent. With regard to Limerick, the state of things there was very peculiar. The Town Council, who were of mixed politics, were practically unanimous in favour of 1138 the withdrawal of these extra police, and the borough magistrates, who had been appointed by the Executive, and who had no special reason for being in accord with the people, were also in favour of the withdrawal of these police, and to the abandonment of this unfair claim upon the people of Limerick. If the Government did not consent to that, he would urge the Town Council to hold firmly to their position, as had been done by other Corporations, and to let the Government find their own remedy. The Government must know that this was a most unreasonable claim, for, otherwise, the Corporation and the magistrates would not have protested against it and refused to agree to it. Under these circumstances, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well to give a satisfactory answer to the point raised with regard to the payment of the police and the payment for what passed as the administration of justice in Ireland.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, the Chief Secretary had told him the other day that the Assistant Commissioners had received documentary evidence. He wished to know whether he had received a copy of the evidence taken by the Local Government Board Inspector in the inquiry held in Waterford a fortnight ago; and, if so, whether he would have any objection to lay it on the Table, together with the Inspector's Report, and also the conclusion of the Assistant Commissioners, if they had yet arrived at a conclusion.
§ MR. SMALLobserved, that the people of Ireland were just as willing to pay for policemen as the English people, and in regard to Northampton, the right hon. Gentleman had not shown that there was much difference between the cost of the police there and the cost in Limerick. In Limerick a population of 31,000 paid £2,000 for police; in Northampton a population of 31,000 paid £2,846. Besides, the people of Northampton had control over their police, who were their servants, while in Limerick the case was quite the opposite. When had there been a disturbance in Limerick? The right hon. Gentleman said the police were there because the place was not peaceable; but he had not shown that that was so. The reply of the Chief Secretary to his Question that afternoon was manifestly unsatisfactory, and he must now ask what evi- 1139 dence the Sub-Commissioners had upon which they fixed the judicial rent? The facts were these. The areas of these holdings were two acres; their valuation was £2, and the rent £4. The only evidence of their value put before the Sub-Commissioners was the evidence of one Land Commissioner on the part of the tenants, while the landlord presented no evidence. The Sub-Commissioner did not visit the land, or even looked at it from a distance; but, without taking proper evidence, he affirmed the old rent of £2 an acre, and doubled the valuation. It appeared to him very strange that, as the Chief Secretary had told him in reply, the Land Commissioners would not ask the Sub-Commissioners whether or not they had visited the lands they valued; for in many cases they knew that the Sub-Commissioners did not do so, or had not done so. If they affirmed rents in that way, what protection was there for tenants in the Land Court? The Land Court was of little use now, but it was likely to be of less use unless the Sub-Commissioners visited the land.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was glad that the Chief Secretary would turn his attention to any case brought under his notice as to extra police, and he wished to draw his attention particularly to the town of Galway, from which, he thought, the police might safely be removed. He had no objection to their being as many police in the town as the right hon. Gentleman liked; but he did object to having to pay for dummy police. He had mentioned a case last year, and the Chief Secretary had promised to inquire into it, but he had heard nothing more of it. In England, Members came to London, and found there all the head offices centred in London; and if they had a grievance, they could go to the head office and have it investigated. That gave them direct contact with the officials, but that was not the case in Ireland. They had no control over the office in Dublin. They had some slight control in the House of Commons; but they had no means of calling on the head officers in Dublin, and so were actually obliged to bring matters before the House of Commons. It was not that they were not often in Dublin, but it was no use going to the offices, for they were totally out of gear with the Constitution, as it was understood in Eng- 1140 land. They had not the means in Ireland of remedying these small grievances which the people of England had, and therefore they must bring them before the House, and so they must take up the time of the House. In Galway 100 extra men were put on, but 50, or loss, of these were dummies. According to the Rules, a certain number of constables were allotted to each county, and for Galway there were 500. If extra police were put on the county, a certain number of the 500 were taken off and sent away—perhaps 60 or 70 of them—and returned as ill. Then 60 or 70 extra were put on and charged for as 100. These men were not really ill, but were sent away on leave and then charged on the county. The Chief Secretary was very fond of statistics, and he was usually accurate; but in this case he was not correct. His statement of £32,000 in English towns, as against £24,000 in Irish towns, was incorrect. As a rule the Government were fond of underpaying men in Ireland. The Constabulary got enormous pensions, because the Government wished to secure faithfulness in the force, and of course large pensions were an obvious way of securing that; but if the Local Authorities maintained their own police, and followed the example of the Government in paying less than they paid in the Civil Service, and for National School Teachers, there would not be much difference between the two totals. The Government said they paid for the Irish Constabulary; but in reality, as the Chief Secretary had shown, they gave only one-fourth. Of course there was a large extra sum in Ireland; but he looked upon that as a military item for the Constabulary. In regard to roads, the Government also said they paid for roads in Ireland; but they did not do so, because, while they paid for the Constabulary, the Local Authorities paid for the roads. They had voted a large sum for roads in England and Scotland; but they had voted nothing for Ireland. Then there was another item which had grown up in recent years, the conveyance of prisoners. In every way they had a wretched system of administering, and were heavily mulcted in these matters, and to his mind the Irish Members did not take half as much notice of these things as they ought to do. Ireland only got 1141 £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 of the £9,000,000 voted in the ordinary expense of the country, and he thought the Irish Members should vote against Supply, until the Government showed some little care in attending to their wants in these matters. He wanted the Government to give Ireland a contribution, either to the rates, or an equivalent to what was given in England and Scotland. Also, in parts of the country which were undisturbed they wanted the Government to relieve them from the police tax. There was no use in keeping up a recollection of troubles, and he therefore would not keep the police in a district four or six months after a disturbance had taken place. These were very simple points, and, he believed, tolerably practicable ones. He had thought it right to make these observations that night, and he must protest against the contempt in which the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant dealt with matters of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman would not be able at all to look into Irish administration and Irish affairs, if he were not backed up by a large majority of the Irish Members—that was to say, if matters were not brought before his attention by those Members. The Chief Secretary for Ireland got no assistance from the Opposition, because those who supported him were snubbed, and the right hon. Gentleman was, therefore, in the hands of the Executive officials in Dublin, who spent money, and who made something out of the expenditure. That was the reason why the remonstrances of the Irish Members were treated with but very little attention.
§ MR. MOOREsaid, that no doubt it was the duty of the Government to look into this point as to the extra police, setting aside those argumentative and administrative questions concerning the alleged disorder of the districts. He (Mr. Moore) desired the right hon. Gentleman to look into the financial question. There was no doubt that the moment sanction was given for the employment of extra police in a certain district, that a draft was made which became a permanent extra police force. He had gone into this question for some years—he was not speaking on the point of order or of disorder—year after year on the only occasions when they had an opportunity of exercising anything like 1142 control over the taxation, he had objected to the extra police tax, because the men were not employed in their own county. What were the figures? He thought there were 60 extra police appointed in the County Tipperary. Year after year he had insisted on having a responsible officer come before the Grand Jury to make a statement in regard to the matter. They had been paying in Tipperary for 60 men, and they never had had that number by as many as three. It was very galling and irritating to have to pay this tax. The Committee was perfectly ignorant of the way in which these matters were managed. Hundreds of pounds were thrown away in the Irish counties under the Prisons Act. No one knew what was going to be done. That was very often the case amongst hon. Members when the House was passing a Public Act. They were often perfectly ignorant of the way in which they were piling up local taxation. They knew very well what they were doing when they were piling up Imperial taxation, because the expenditure in that case had to come before them in the Estimates; but that was not the case with local taxes. That House had no jurisdiction over local taxes, and, therefore, he thought this question of police was one that should be inquired into. It would be satisfactory to know whether the districts now paying for extra police had the full Parliamentary force.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought they had had enough talking that night, and he was glad to have heard such a large chorus of assent. If they had any more discussion they would have too much, and, therefore, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant an opportunity of answering the questions that had been put to him—his answers would involve a great deal more talk—he would move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that seeing they had discussed this Vote for so long —for seven or eight hours—he would put it to the Committee whether it would not be idle now to report Progress, thereby adjourning the debate. The Vote must be taken that night. [Colonel NOLAN; 1143 Why must?] They must have the Vote before separation for the Whitsuntide Recess, inasmuch, as the two months for which they had obtained money expired on the 31st of the present month. If they did not obtain this Vote, during the holidays they would have nothing to go on with. If the debate was postponed for another night, he was confident they would have just as much discussion as they would be likely to have to-night.
§ COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was anxious to talk until the Chief (Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant came in. The right hon. Gentleman was now in his place, and, that being so, he would proceed to put three or four subjects before him. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman how jaded hon. Members were, and he wished to mention several subjects, and to talk about each one. It would be a great advantage if they went to a Division now. He knew Irish Members were very few in the Committee; but naturally they thought that a Division on a Motion for reporting Progress would have its advantages, because the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who, in an earlier part of the evening, had answered some questions very satisfactorily, had failed to give an answer at all on certain financial subjects. He thought the Motion for Progress was very properly moved at a time when they were getting no answers from the Chief Secretary.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman, having listened to his speech, and was prepared to give an answer to him which he thought would be agreeable to him and to those who sat around him. The fact was, that he (Mr. Trevelyan) had not spoken at once out of respect to hon. Gentlemen who were getting up on the other side. He, for his own part, had been anxious to avoid rising more than once.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had effected the purpose he had in view in moving to report Progress. He had elicited that little word "must"—he had elicited that the Government must come down three or four times a-year and say—"We want the money and we 'must' have it." He wished the public to see that, and to ask themselves whether that was the proper way in which Supplies should be demanded from the 1144 House of Commons. He should be very much surprised if there was not a very great deal of dissatisfaction before long in the country at the way in which public money was voted in the small hours in the morning. Not wishing to put hon. Members to the trouble of walking the Lobbies, and not wishing to have that trouble himself, he should withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
MR. O'BRIENsaid, that before the Chief Secretary answered he should like to call his attention to another matter— with reference to the charges brought against the Government in connection with certain very horrible scandals in Dublin. He had intended to take an opportunity on that occasion to draw attention to the whole question; but the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had obtained in the ballot a much more favourable opportunity, at a time when the excuse that litigation was pending, he ventured to think, would be no longer available for the prevention of full discussion. he would not refer further to the case than to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, which he thought he was entitled to ask him, to give some guarantee or engagement that precautions would be taken that none of the persons who were inculpated in this matter were permitted to leave the country in the meantime. He thought he was also entitled to ask that any questions in reference to the pensions of any of these officials would be reserved until such time as the House had had an opportunity of discussing the Motion of the hon. Member for Queen's County.
§ MR. TREVELYANremarked, that the hon. Member had said very little about the case itself, and he (Mr. Trevelyan) should follow his example, and say as little as he could with regard to it. In answer to the two questions that had been put to him, he had to observe that it was impossible for people to be arrested and kept in the country when no criminal charge had been preferred against them—["Oh, oh!"] Well, no information of any sort or kind had been laid against these persons— ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might dissent as much as they liked, 1145 but he was stating a simple fact. To prevent any person leaving the country before anyone had laid any information against them was a proposition which would not be for a moment entertained. As to the other point, the Government bad called upon these persons to vindicate their character, and that was one of the matters which the hon. Member (Mr. O'Brien) intended to refer to when dealing with the conduct of the Government. No pensions would be allotted until this matter was decided. The hon. Member for Waterford City (Mr. Leamy) had asked him for the details of the evidence that was laid before the Prisons Commission. He should be inclined to ask the hon. Member to wait and see how soon the Report of the Commission would be in coming out. He should presume the evidence the hon. Member asked for would be printed in the Appendix to the Report of the Commission; but, at any rate, they should wait and see whether or not that was the case. As to the question the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. W. Redmond) had asked him earlier in the evening in reference to a decision in the Land Commission Court, he had given him the answer which had been placed in his hands by the Land Commissioners, and he must say to bis mind that answer was a very reasonable one. The hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) also thought it a reasonable one that he had given to the hon. and gallant Member for Dorset (Colonel Digby) about five minutes before. The hon. Member for Dorset had asked for certain decisions, and he (Mr. Trevelyan) had given the answer and some explanation of a pointed nature on his own prompting. The fact was they could not force the Land Commission to give details to the House of Commons as to the processes of their judicial inquiry. The Commissioners very rightly stated that they were not willing to give such details, and that if any irregularities had taken place during an inquiry before them they could be made the subject of appeal. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) had spoken on certain financial questions with which he was familiar, and had declared that the Chief Secretary, partly from being overworked and partly from being ill-advised, was not cognizant of the facts which were exercising 1146 the minds of the Irish Members. Well, he (Mr. Trevelyan) must say that the questions relating to the disposition of the police force and the proportion of the expenses contributed by the county at a time when they were not getting the benefit of its services, were the first questions which were presented to any Chief Secretary, and of which he heard more than he did of any other class of questions during the time beheld Office. Of that subject he had spoken very frequently in the House. He had referred to casualties which must occur in every force, and the proportion of men who were recruits and who were under training. The complete force, which was nearly 10,000 men actually on duty in the streets and lanes, lost 10 per cent of its men who had to be formed by the commands amongst whom the force was allotted. The matter was one which had long been in dispute between the Executive Government and the Irish Members. The hon. Member had then gone on to say there was another question which had escaped the notice of the Irish Government, and in which Ireland was put at great disadvantge as compared to England; and he had said at the time the Prisons Bill was being passed these differences had escaped the House. He (Mr. Trevelyan) would not enter very deeply into this subject. The hon. Member was right in thinking it was a matter of inadvertence; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) was rather unwilling to dwell upon this case, because the controversy on this point had now been settled, and settled in a manner not altogether in accordance with what was the intention of Parliament. It had been settled in the interest of the localities and against the interest of the Exchequer. The Irish Government and the Treasury had come to the conclusion that in the matter of the conveyance of prisoners Ireland and England should be placed on the same footing. He proposed to introduce a short Bill on this subject—either he would or his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) who sat near him; and he had every reason to believe that it would be passed without opposition in the House. He earnestly hoped that the Committee would now be allowed to take the Vote.
COLONEL NOLAN said, that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered him upon the question of the payment for roads.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would answer that; but he trusted that after having received the assurance which he had just made, and which was satisfactory at least in one respect, that hon. Members would now allow the Vote to be taken.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that subventions in aid of turnpike roads was a provisional arrangement assented to most reluctantly two years ago by the Prime Minister in anticipation of the introduction of the County Government Bill. When that Bill was brought in and local finances were properly arranged, the subventions would be withdrawn.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, the announcement which the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General made the other day, that he did not contemplate sending the Irish mail train under the new arrangement earlier in the evening from Euston, had caused a considerable amount of disappointment to all those who had given attention to the subject, which was really one of great importance. Within 24 or 26 hours of that announcement a Memorial was presented to the right hon. Gentleman, signed by 60 Irish Members—or all those in London, except two or three—asking that the decision might be reconsidered. He (Mr. Gray) understood that the right hon. Gentleman's answer was not a favourable one, and that he did not see his way to complying with their request. It was quite natural that those skilled officials and others to whom the matter was referred should recommend, when the case was put before them, that everything should be left as it was rather than that, a new arrangement, involving a considerable amount of trouble upon them, should be undertaken. The Irish Members and the Irish Chambers of Commerce, who had studied the question, considered, and he (Mr. Gray) considered, with many others, that with a thoroughly efficient mail service from London to Dublin, very nearly, if not quite, two hours could be saved on the journey, whereas only something like three quarters of an hour had been saved. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not delay bringing the new system into operation until the Irish Members had had some opportunity of considering it, and the Postmaster General had said that he did not see his way to that delay, 1148 for the reason that it would interfere with the prompt introduction of the new service which he was anxious to establish about the 1st of July. One would have imagined from that that something would be gained from the introduction of the new service; but he (Mr. Gray) ventured to express the opinion that nothing whatever would be gained by it. A certain amount of inconvenience would be suffered by passengers who would be landed in Dublin at an earlier and colder hour than at present. The mail service would not be assisted in the slightest degree. There was nothing to be gained by accelerating the service between London and Dublin alone, as that service was already sufficiently rapid. The mails were posted after business hours in the evening in London, and delivered before business hours in the morning in Dublin, and whether they could be delivered at 6, or 7, or half-past 7, or 8, could make a difference to hardly a single individual. The right hon. Gentleman as yet had not even, so far as he (Mr. Gray) could understand, opened negotiations for the really important portion of the business—that was to say, the acceleration of the mails out from Dublin. He (Mr. Gray) was afraid it was hopeless to ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his determination as to the starting of the Irish mail from Euston. In connection with the service to Cork and Limerick, which were, perhaps, the two most important services, one or two hours acceleration were of no use. What the right hon. Gentleman should give, if he wanted to confer any real advantage whatsoever in the principal Provincial cities, was an acceleration so complete as to enable business men in those towns to answer their letters to London and England by the evening mail leaving the town on the same day on which they had received the letters to which their communications were the replies. At present, letters were received from England in Cork at 2 o'clock, and he believed letters would have to leave Cork at 1, or some such hour, at any rate, some time before the arrival of the English letters, for them to get sent away that day. The giving of an hour or two hours under such circumstances was of no use whatever. The mail train should arrive in Cork from Dublin two hours or two and a-half hours before the corresponding mail left Cork for Dublin, 1149 Unless that were settled, and merchants and business men had an opportunity of replying to the letters they received the same day, the right hon. Gentleman might save himself the trouble of interfering with the Irish mail arrangements. He was astonished to find that the right hon. Gentleman had not taken into consideration the desirability of despatching a mail from Dublin in the evenings at a later hour than at present. If an acceleration of three quarters of an hour could be given between London and Dublin, an acceleration of a corresponding period should be given between Dublin and London. He should have imagined that the right hon. Gentleman, when arranging the service from London to Dublin, would also have arranged the service from Dublin to London, and would not have lost sight of that important element in the solution of the problem of how to satisfy the inhabitants of the Provincial towns in Ireland by enabling them to save 24 hours in their correspondence. It must be remembered that there was only one mail service to all the great towns in the morning, and that the whole passenger service depended on the mail trains. That was not the case in England. In Ireland they were dependent altogether for their rapid travelling on the arrangements that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General might make, and they would be dependent upon them for 10 years to come. He pressed these matters to the right hon. Gentleman's attention, because, though uniformity might be a very nice thing in the Post Office, there was something far more important for the travelling public of Ireland. He and the other Irish Members desired to get the best possible service they could, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his wav to communicate on the subject with those who were interested in the matter in Ireland. ["Divide !"] He (Mr. Gray) was aware this was not a matter of importance to English Members; but it was one of great importance to the constituency he (Mr. Gray) represented (Carlow County), and, therefore, he intended to discuss it. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to communicating his plan to those directly interested before he decided the matter. There was always a great deal of mystery enshroud- 1150 ing Post Office contracts, and he (Mr. Gray) never for the life of him could understand why that was. He never could understand why, when tenders had been submitted, they could not be published before they were accepted or rejected; and in the same way, when the Department had arrived at a plan for the revision of the mail service, he did not know why it could not be submitted to those interested before it was decided upon. The mere laying of a contract for 40 days on the Table really meant nothing at all. he would invite the right hon. Gentleman to explain why he should not consult Chambers of Commerce in Ireland on a subject which so directly concerned them before he came to a final decision, which would bind not only the present, but would bind succeeding Governments for 10 years to come, and bind the whole of Ireland, and, in fact, the whole of the interests of the country. He did not suggest that the Chambers of Commerce should have power, or control, or veto in the matter; but he thought, at least, their opinion should be taken on the question they had studied very minutely, and in which they were profoundly interested. It should be in the power of those who were interested to make reasonable suggestions which might be thrown out, but which at times, if adopted, might be found to give a largely improved system, and do what the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, desired to do—namely, to give the best possible mail service which was practicable, under the circumstances, to the country.
§ MR. DEASYsaid, that, before the right hon. Gentleman answered, he should like to call his attention to the case of Cork.
§ MR. FAWCETTI am going to refer to that. I will, first of all, make a short statement in reply to the hon. Member for Carlow, who has put questions with regard to the time the Irish mails should leave, and acceleration to Cork and other towns. He says I ought to have consulted Irish Members and Irish Chambers of Commerce. Well, that is what I did. I have repeatedly done so, and it is what I am always anxious to do. I am sure there is an almost unanimous wish that the Irish mail should leave Euston earlier than it does; and I have 1151 acted throughout on the assumption that this is the wish of Irish Members, and the Irish people who take an interest in the subject, and I have endeavoured to effect that object. But it is entirely a question of the intricacies of Post Office administration. The train must meet cross-country trains that bring letters from various towns to catch the mail train. Even starting the train at the same time, and accelerating it to the Midland towns, even that, in some cases, will cause considerable difficulty, because at such towns as Nottingham, for instance, Irish letters will have to be posted earlier than at the present time. This is not the only difficulty, as I have stated before. If the train leaves at 8, instead of half-past, as I have tried to arrange, it would be necessary that the Irish letters with the late fee should be posted earlier in London. Not only so, but through Dublin the whole of the American correspondence passes; therefore, if we start at 8 o'clock we introduce an anomaly, two kinds of late fee postings, which will be attended with serious inconvenience. Now, hon. Members say this acceleration of half an hour is of no use in Ireland.
§ MR. FAWCETTI know it will be of no use to Dublin, but it is essential, as I will show, to effect the acceleration —so much desired—to Cork, and I take that as a typical instance. We shall get an acceleration of half an hour; and when the new steamers are ready for use—and under the contract they must be ready next year—another quarter of an hour will be gained, an aggregate acceleration of three quarters of an hour. When this comes into operation it will be very possible to have a most important acceleration to Cork. The mail now leaves Dublin at 9, and arrives at Cork at 2, while the mail leaves Cork at half-past 12, an hour and a-half before the mail arrives, so that quick replies to letters are hopeless. Now when the whole acceleration comes into operation, I hope it will be possible for the mail train to leave Dublin for Cork at a quarter before 8, and arrive in Cork at 12, and instead of leaving at half-past 12 will leave Cork for Dublin at 2 or shortly before, thus gaining the time hon. Members so much desire. I did not like to interrupt the hon. Member 1152 while he was speaking; but I could have told him this was the direction in which we are working at the present time. I have made proposals to the Railway Companies, and of course much will depend on terms; but this has been my object—my chief object—throughout, to gain the very two hours hon. Members think so important. If this acceleration can be obtained it will be of great importance to the South of Ireland and to the public generally; because it will to this extent accelerate the American mails, and render it unnecessary for steamers to wait so long at Queenstown by two hours as they do now. I hope Irish Members and the Committee will think I have said enough to convince them that I am as anxious as hon. Members are to do everything possible to improve the Irish mail service.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, after this satisfactory statement he no longer felt regret that he had delayed the Committee. It was a satisfaction to have elicited such an explanation. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would appreciate their anxiety, as he had made no such public statement until now, and would believe that it was with no desire to harrass him with questions that the subject had so often been brought forward.
§ MR. SEXTONtrusted the Postmaster General would see his way to carry out an equally effective acceleration to the West of Ireland, where the mail service was even worse than in the South.
§ MR. FAWCETTI cannot give any promise yet. I take Cork in hand first of all. No doubt the hon. Member refers to Sligo. An acceleration there presents greater difficulty, and the correspondence to be dealt with is much less, but I will see what can be done. The Cork acceleration is, to my mind, of the most pressing importance; but I will not lose sight of other matters. I am going to consider the whole subject of Irish mails; and I hope hon. Members will not now press me as to one district after another. I take Cork in hand at once as being in the worst condition, and as being of most importance in connection with the American mails.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.