HC Deb 25 March 1858 vol 149 cc712-79

I rise to move the following Resolution:— That in the opinion of this House, the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ought to be abolished, and the office of Secretary of State for Ireland to be at once created. The Resolution which I beg leave to submit to the House has been the subject of misrepresentation both as respects its object and the person who moves it. One hon. Member of this House has not thought it unworthy of himself to state to his constituents, that I am an enemy to Ireland because I have given notice of my intention to move this Resolution. That is somewhat hard on me, for I, unfortunately for myself, have been a Member of this House for something like a quarter of a century, and never dining the whole time have I done anything which could be marked out as opposed to the welfare or good government of Ireland. I have stood here side by side with Mr. O'Connell when he was fighting the battle for the people of Ireland, and I have voted for every measure proposed in this House for the amelioration of that country, and for the good government of Ireland and its inhabitants. I think that there are only two questions on which I have found myself opposed to the majority of the hon. Members for Ireland; and they are the proposition for the repeal of the union, and the question of tenant-right. How, then, I could be supposed to be an enemy to Ireland I cannot understand. Every object of my public life has been to lift her up, and to place her on a perfect equality with England, and to provide, as far as legislation can, for the happiness of her people. Now, to this end, I believe that my Resolution will conduce. I believe that the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant will elevate Ireland from the state of a province to the position she ought to hold as an integral part of the Imperial Government of this Kingdom. I want Irishmen to have the same confidence in Ireland that I have, for I believe that she is able to take her position as a great independent portion of the Empire of Great Britain and Ireland. No one more fully than I do admits that for centuries Ireland has been the subject of misgovernment. She has suffered from England more than almost any country has suffered from any other country. But all that has now passed away, and I believe that Ireland is at present treated in the way in which she ought to be treated—as an independent and component part of the Empire of Great Britain and Ireland, and that her happiness is as much cared for in this House as the happiness of England. If I saw any one symptom in any part of the House opposed to the statement I now make, I should be the first to signalize such a dereliction of duty; and I believe that in proposing the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, I am conducing to the dignity of that country and to the happiness of her people. I therefore beseech hon. Members for Ireland to dismiss from their minds any notion that I am now proposing anything to degrade their country, my only object bring to assist her on in the bright course which lies be- fore her. Having made these few remarks on a subject about which I ought not, perhaps, to have troubled the House, I now come to the Resolution I intend to move. I propose the abolition of the office of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and in order to bring the House to concur in my views, I will consider that office under three aspects—first as regards its expense, secondly as regards social influence, and lastly with respect to political influence. In all these respects I shall be able to show that the office of Lord Lieutenant is mischievous to Ireland, and I appeal to the patriotism of Irish Members in the full hope and belief that they will support me on the present occasion, if I prove that that office does not really conduce to the benefit of Ireland. Now, as regards the expense, that is the least mischievous element; but I sincerely believe I am putting it at a low figure if I say that from first to last the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland costs the Government £50,000 a year. [An hon. Member expressed dissent.] I may be wrong, but if so let the hon. Member show the error. I believe that that amount of money is expended, and that it is expended for nobody's benefit. I have heard, indeed, the declaration that taxes taken from the people return again to the people in refreshing dews of expenditure. Now, I am not one who believes in those refreshing dews. I believe that every farthing taken from the people ought to be returned to them in the shape of service rendered, and that nothing ought to be paid for, but what is deserving of remuneration. A nobleman of wealth who is taken over to Ireland to represent most inefficiently the Sovereign of England, spends certain sums among the shopkeepers of Dublin, and in that consists the whole benefit of the office of Lord Lieutenant to Ireland. All I can say is, that I pity the mind of the man who considers as a national benefit the advantage which a few shopkeepers in Dublin receive from the expenditure of the Castle; but I can put against that the intrigue, the dissatisfaction, delay, and bad government which this tinsel Sovereignty, this miserable exhibition of power engenders. The presence of the Lord Lieutenant may, indeed, induce certain persons to buy certain coats, waistcoats, and breeches to go to Court in, and the tailors of Dublin may derive some benefit from that expenditure. You may have, too, a Lord Lieutenant who exhila- rates the people of Ireland by his dancing propensities, and he may give them good music and good parties; but should such matters be taken into consideration when talking about the government of a great people? I say then, first, that the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is objectionable on account of the expenditure. In the next place I will ask what are the social benefits derived from it? I appeal to every gentleman at all acquainted with society in Dublin, and I ask whether he does not believe in his heart that that society is really injured by the existing institution of a Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? Intrigue, heartburning, and all sorts of evil arise from that institution. He is not and cannot be the sovereign of Ireland; he is merely a pageant, and the society of Dublin is really influenced by the underlings of the Irish Court. A man goes to Dublin, and a certain number of his family are attractive. Some can sing, some dance, and others are pretty. They are invited to the Lord Lieutenant's balls; but, if there arrive in that city a worthy man not having any of these advantages, then the underlings bar his approach to the Court and he is not invited. Now, if society in Dublin were like society in great cities, such as Leeds, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Manchester, it would be dependent on itself, and would not be influenced by the distinction accorded or denied by upstart underlings; but every man in Ireland knows that much heartburning is thereby created. The going to the Castle does not depend on worth or wealth, but on intrigue and the mere ipse dixit of a certain underling. Socially considered the office of Lord Lieutenant is attended by no benefit, and the money expended on him I would rather see expended on public works in Ireland than on a useless and idle pageant. Then, what is the case politically? Let us understand what the Government of Ireland is. Nominally, it is subject to the Home Office in England; but there are two persons who interfere with the direct management of Ireland —the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant is not a Cabinet Minister; he may be a Member of the other House, but he is not responsible to Parliament. The Chief Secretary is responsible to Parliament, and if he were the real governor of Ireland I should say it was a very good institution; but now he can always say that he is not the governor, and can point to the Home Secretary, and to the Lord Lieutenant, whose secretary he is. Thus by dividing responsibility you destroy it, and you have no real responsibility for the government of Ireland. I believe that if you were to concentrate all this power into one hand, and leave him who possessed it to exercise it before the world as the Governor of Ireland responsible to Parliament, you would do much for the good government of the country. You would do away with the tinsel and idle pageantry by which the Lord Lieutenant is surrounded; you would do away with the Chief Secretary, but you would have in this House a person really responsible for the government of the country. What then do I propose to substitute for the existing system? I would take away from the Home Secretary the power he possesses over Ireland; and I would do away with the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary. Now, if I had followed my own wishes, I should have said that I believe that, in consequence of the system of good government now instituted in respect to Ireland, the business of that country has become so small that it really could be done by one person, appointed to administer the Home affairs both of England and Ireland. But I am told that English affairs might, under some circumstances, so far engross the attention of the Secretary of State that he would be unable to give due consideration to Irish business. To forestall that difficulty I propose the creation of a Secretary of State for Ireland. I believe no inconvenience would arise from our having a Secretary of State for Ireland as well as a Secretary of State for England. We have a Secretary of State for the Colonies, and a Secretary of State for War, and we shall probably have a Secretary of State for India, all in the same Cabinet; and I see no reason why we should not have a Secretary of State for Ireland. There are feelings existing among the Irish people which I desire to conciliate, and I believe those feelings would be conciliated by the appointment of a Secretary of State for Ireland. There is—and I do not wonder at it—a feeling prevalent amongst Irish people that they are not thought of as worthily as they ought to be by the people of England. When we remember that for centuries the Irish have been subjected to misgovernment, we cannot expect that the recollection of that misgovernment, and the feelings to which it has given rise, should be at once and for ever effaced. No one admits more wil- lingly than I do that Ireland has been misgoverned for centuries; I think the Irish people and their leaders have had reason to complain of England; but, in order to remove the feeling of injustice which has been excited, I would propose at once to create a Secretary of State for Ireland in the place of the triple-headed Government which now exists. Now, how am I to be met on this question? One hon. Gentleman (Mr. Blackburn) has given notice that he intends to move the omission of the latter portion of my Resolution, providing for the appointment of a Secretary of State for Ireland. That is the proposal of a Scottish Member, and I believe the reason for it is that the people of Scotland desire to have a Secretary of State for that country, and because they have not such an officer they say Ireland shall not have one. I think this dog-in-manager sort of proceeding is puerile and despicable. Another hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. B. Miller) intends to move "the previous question." That is the mode in which a Motion I made last year for abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant was met, and I then stated to the House what the effect of adopting that proposition really was; I will now repeat what I stated then. By adopting the Motion for "the previous question" the House will declare that it does not regard the present as a proper time for expressing an opinion on this subject. Now, what are the circumstances of the present time? Ireland is at peace; the union between the two countries is more complete than it has ever been; if you could adopt such a course as I propose with safety at any time it may be adopted safely now, and nothing can be gained by postponement. My object is to effect a cordial union between the people of England and of Ireland. You have taken away from the Irish people that of which they wore justly proud—their separate Legislature. I can fully sympathize with the feelings of Irishmen, who look back with regret to the period when their own Legislature was distinguished by a splendid array of intellect and eloquence. Of that source of pride they have been deprived, wisely, as I think; and as we have so far done violence to the sentiments of the Irish people, why should we stop half-way, and hesitate at depriving them of a mere pageant — a badge of slavery — for the Lord Lieutenant is not the sovereign of Ireland, but the mere satrap of England? I say to Irish gentlemen, and to the Irish people, "Be one with us; make yourselves worthy to be our friends, our brethren; and render Ireland, in reality, a portion of that great empire of which it forms a component item." I would have an Irish county placed in the same position as an English county. With the improved means of communication and transport which have become so general of late years, why should it be more difficult to govern Water-ford than it is to govern Northumberland, or, still more, the distant counties of Scotland? You can now travel from this metropolis to Dublin in twelve hours, and you can send a telegraphic message hence to Dublin in a few minutes. In what, then, consists the separation between Ireland and England, except in that small channel of water that flows between them? Even that channel can now be crossed in five hours as certainly as if the traveller were performing the journey by railway. The communication between Dublin and London is, in fact, as certain, and more rapid than the communication between London and Edinburgh. These are my reasons for wishing at once to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant, and to substitute a Secretary of State for Ireland, and I cannot understand, if hon. Gentlemen wish to allay the heart burnings which have arisen from long centuries of misrule—if they wish to consider themselves not merely Irishmen, but subjects of this great British empire—on what grounds they can object to my proposition. I beg to move the Resolution.


seconded the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed,— That, in the opinion of this House, the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ought to be abolished, and the office of Secretary of State for Ireland to be at once created.


said, that he was not surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Sheffield, had introduced his Resolution by disclaiming any hostility towards Ireland, seeing that he had no connection whatever with that country, or any identity of sentiment or sympathy of feeling with her people. Nevertheless, he had taken upon himself to call upon the House to express its opinion that the office of Lord Lieutenant, which had not only been in existence for centuries, but under which the executive government of Ireland was at this moment carried on, ought at once and for ever to be abolished. And how did he propose to carry out the plan? By a declaration of this House, unaccompanied by any com- prehensire, well-arranged, or well-digested measure, which would enable any one to arrive at the conclusion that the office he proposed to substitute for the Lord Lieutenancy would better contribute to the preservation of order, and the welfare of society in that country. Supposing this sweeping Motion to be agreed to, what was the probability that effect would be given to it by any such well-considered measure as he had described? His Amendment raised the question of time, and in his opinion most justly so, for was it to be expected that Her Majesty's Ministers, who, it might be said, had scarcely taken their places, could devote themselves to the preparation of a well digested scheme for establishing an efficient Administration in Ireland, whilst so many other matters of much more pressing importance crowded upon their attention? If, then, they were not to look for any prompt and immediate practical result from the adoption of the Resolution, was it, he asked, a sound, a prudent, or a just step, by such a Resolution to place the existing form of government under the ban of extinction, and by leaving it for months under sentence of condemnation paralyze the arm of the Executive in Ireland? He could not persuade himself that the House would agree to the proposal, emanating as it did from a private Member of the House; but that they would be of opinion that any measure for go essentially altering the Government of Ireland must come from Her Majesty's Ministers themselves, after they had given it a full, fair, and candid consideration, and carefully balanced its probable results. When a measure of that nature came before the House, and they were made acquainted with the exact nature of the substitute proposed for the existing system, then they would be in a position to form a just and correct estimate; but until that period arrived, he must enter his earnest protest against this piecemeal, this experimental, legislation, at the instance of a private Member of the House, who was altogether unconnected with the country with respect to which he proposed to legislate. If, when the Motion was brought forward last year, and there was a Government in power which was confident in its strength, that was not deemed a fitting time for its adoption as introductory to future legislation, surely this was not the fitting time, when we could not reasonably anticipate that the Government could di- rect its attention to the means of giving the Resolution effect within any moderate period. He called upon hon. Members, therefore, whatever their opinions might be as to the expediency or inexpediency of abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant, to concur with him in declaring that the present was not the fitting time or the fitting manner in which to take a step of the sort. In saying this, however, he reserved to himself the right of exercising his unbiased judgment hereafter, when the question was introduced in the form in which it ought to be, by the Government of the country for the time being—namely, as a measure which should be perfect in all its parts; not merely substituting a Secretary of State for the Lord Lieutenant, but adjusting and readjusting the relative duties of the Secretary of State, and the Under Secretary for Ireland, if that office should still be continued; and determining whether the Under Secretary should be resident or non-resident; whether the country should be governed on the spot or be handed over to subordinates. The hon. and learned Member had stated three grounds in support of his Motion, the first being that of expense. Well, here again they were encountered by one of the difficulties which necessarily arose out of the mode in which the subject had been brought before the House. For in the absence of the materials for ascertaining whether the present expenditure amounted to the sum stated, and of the means of instituting a comparison between the present expenditure and the last, of maintaining a Secretary of State for Ireland, an Under Secretary, and a staff of officials, it was impossible to say whether there would be any saving or not. It was, in short, a mere matter of speculation as to whether the hon. and learned Member might be right; hut facts might lead to a totally different conclusion. The hon. and learned Member next referred to the position of provincial dependency in which Ireland was placed by the presence of a Lord Lieutenant. He must express his surprise at the frequency with which that expression was made use of in reference to this subject, as he (Mr. Miller), for one, felt no provincial dependency in having a Lord Lieutenant residing in that country, with full power and authority to give effect to the Executive Government by his personal presence there. For his part, he regarded the Viceroyalty as the last remnant of that self-government to which the hon. and learn- ed Member had adverted, and which very many people in that country conscientiously believed, had been guaranteed to the Irish people as a consideration for the surrender of the essential part of self-government which had been so readily given up by them. Next, with regard to the political influence of the office in Ireland, upon that question he would refer to an authority which would be readily recognized in that House. When the Bill of the noble Lord, the Member for London went up to the House of Lords, one of the greatest men who had ever been engaged in the service of this country, and who was well and intimately acquainted with the circumstances of Ireland, said that if that measure for the withdrawal of the Lord Lieutenant should be adopted, there must still be a central authority in Ireland; but that the Government were much mistaken if they thought that any authority they could form, unless it succeeded to the powers which were conferred by law, usage, and prescription upon the representative of the Sovereign, would be equally capable of carrying any of the operations to which fe referred into execution. If, then, the Government proposed by the hon. and learned Member fur Sheffield was to be a resident Government, he asked where would be the essential difference, for it would retain all the evils which attached to the present system, without having the authority or power which was conferred by law, usage, and custom for giving effect to the Executive Government of the country. On the other hand, if there was not a resident Government in Ireland, the result would be the handing over of the management of its affairs to subordinate authorities, exposed to all those evils of local influence and prejudice to which people in obscure stations were generally the most susceptible, but to which the man of rank and station, who filled the office of Lord Lieutenant, might be supposed to rise superior. He asked the House, then, on behalf of that country which was now making more progress than its most sanguine well-wishers could at one time have anticipated, repose from this experimental legislation, and protection from the revival—the incessant renewal—of Motions of this nature. Let the lion, and learned Member for Sheffield find some other field in which to act in his capacity of public prosecutor, and allow Ireland, at least for a time, to remain in peace. After his failure upon the last occasion, and, as he anticipated, his failure also upon this, he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would leave that country to the tender mercies of the Government of the Crown, to be dealt with by them as they might think fit. He fully recognised the right of every hon. Member of this House to suggest alterations in the laws, but he repeated that he deprecated the perpetual renewal of this question, as unnecessarily creating a large amount of uncertainty in the minds of men, and as calculated to interrupt the social and moral progress of Ireland; and so feeling, he would conclude by moving the previous question.


seconded the Amendment.


thought the Amendment which had just been moved was just as objectionable as the original Motion. What was the previous question? In the able work of Mr. May, on the forms and usages of Parliament, it was stated to be an ingenious device to avoid giving any opinion on the question before the House. Now, he looked upon it as something more —namely, as a tacit admission that you were unable to contest the force of the proposal under discussion. He was surprised that such a Motion should have emanated from the Ministerial side of the House, because the Government had left the country in no doubt as to what their policy would be on this question. Lord Eglinton had declared that the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy would be a great and permanent injury, not alone to Dublin, but to the country in general, and he did not believe that any satisfactory executive Government could be established in its place. His Lordship added that he was happy to be able to announce that those views were also entertained by his colleagues. Under the circumstances, why should the hon. Gentleman, by a Motion of this kind, prevent the Government from honestly stating their views in opposition to the Motion? If, too, the hon. Member complained of perpetual annoyance from these discussions, he was surely taking the very best means of renewing that annoyance by refusing to come to a decision on the subject. He had no complaint to make of the spirit in which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had submitted his Motion to the notice of the House; but he might observe that it had been supported by the self-same assertions —he could not call them arguments—by which a similar proposition had upon five previous occasions been pressed upon the attention of Parliament. In 1824, 1830, 1844, 1850, 1857, the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the divided authority which existed in the case of the Lord Lieutenant and the Home Secretary was calculated to work injuriously, but he had not informed the House what practical inconvenience had been the result of the machinery by means of which the affairs of Ireland were at present administered. He stated that the maintenance of the office could only be regarded as a badge of subjection. If the people of Ireland thought so, he would have been supported by petitions praying for its abolition, but not one had been laid on the table of the House. He stated that as the communication between Dublin and London now takes place in a few hours, there was no longer a necessity or pretence for keeping it up—that by doing away with it, Ireland would become, in reality, what at the Union she became nominally, an integral portion of the united empire, and that, in getting rid of the absurdity of a mock and tinsel loyalty, you would at the same time destroy a focus of corruption, and root out a nest of secret and incorrigible jobbers. All this had been stated before without convincing Parliament of the expediency of agreeing to the Resolution of the hon. Member, and he knew no reason why it should be received more favourably by the present House of Commons than it had been by preceding ones. The objects which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view in effecting a change in the locality of the Irish executive seemed to be to render its working thereby more English, more efficient, and more economical. Now, so far as the question of making it more English was concerned, he doubted whether the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman would be productive of any substantial results, inasmuch as, with the exception of the office of Lord Chancellor and Chief Secretary, every post of importance connected with the Irish Government was occupied by either Englishmen or Scotchmen, notwithstanding the fact that natives of that country were quite as well qualified for the discharge of the duties of situations of public responsibility. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Eglinton, was Scotch; The Under Secretary, Colonel Larcom, was English; the Commander in Chief, Lord Seaton, was English; the Archbishop-rick of Dublin, the great prize in the church, was filled by an Englishman, Doc- tor Whately; the Inspector General of Constabulary, Sir D. Macgregor, was Scotch, the Chief of the Revenue Police, Colonel M'Laghlin, at its abolition, was Scotch; the two Chief Commissioners of Poor Laws, Messrs. Power and Senior, were English; the Paymaster of Civil Services, Mr. Grey, was English; the head of the Metropolitan Police in Dublin, Colonel Browne, was an Englishman. He did not blame the present Government for this—it was a system which they found established. Since the Union, out of eight Chancellors but three were Irish; out of twenty Lord Lieutenants but two, Lord Wellesley and Lord Bessborough, were Irish; and out of twenty-seven Chief Secretaries but five were Irish. Indeed, one of the complaints which he had to urge against the noble Lord at the head of the late Government was, that he carried this system to a greater pitch (himself an Irishman) than other Ministers had ventured to do. On his succeeding to the Government he found an Irishman, Sir J. Young, Chief Secretary; he replaced him with a Scotchman; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud, resigned the office the noble Lord offered it in succession to another Scotchman, the noble Lord the Member for Haddington, to the Member for Wolverhampton, and to the Chairman of the Ways and Means. In justice to the noble Lord, it should be stated, that when by the desertion of his Scotch and English friends he was compelled to abandon the magic circle of exclusion, and to appoint an Irishman, he chose one to whom no objection could be made, his right hon. Friend the Member for Kerry. In upwards of fifty years' official experience the noble Lord must have been aware how well Irishmen have served the State—how deeply he was indebted to an Irishman, Sir II. Pottinger, for the settlement of China and the Cape. He knew that the only general in our service now living, who had commanded in extensive campaigns, and who won a general action, was an Irishman, Lord Gough. He fought seven pitched battles, Maharagpoor, Moodkee, Ferozeshah, Sabraon, Chillinwallah, and Googerat, and won them all. The persons by whom the discovery of the north-west passage was completed were three Irishmen, M'Clure, M'Clintock, and Kellet. And of the eight great men by whom our empire in India was saved, four of them, the two Laurences, Montgomery, and the iron soldier of the Punjab, Nicholson, were Irish. Havelock Wilson, and Outram were English, and Neil was Scotch. It was customary to talk of the misgovernment of Ireland; hut if Ireland was or had been misgoverned, to whom was the blame attributable? to the Governments of England and to their alien nominees in Ireland. In the administration of matters left to their own control, the Irish challenged inquiry and defied both criticism and censure; the administration of the various public departments in Ireland, might very well bear comparison with the management of similar departments in this country. The Irish Judges were as learned as impartial, and as independent as the English. For more than half a century, by means of the Assistant Barristers' Courts, justice was administered to the people of Ireland cheaply, expeditiously, and on the spot; the system had lately been adopted here in the County Courts in all but its economy. In Ireland the fiscal affairs were far better managed. Nearly 50,000 miles of road wore kept in repair for £400,000 a year; they had no debt. In England, 26,000 miles of road were bankrupt for eight millions. The poor laws, though lately introduced into Ireland, were as efficiently and as economically administered as they were here. The Irish railways were constructed cheaper, more economically managed, and paid a better dividend than the English. The only railways in Ireland that did not pay were those which were managed in London; and the results of the late monetary crisis, proved that their banking system in Ireland was on a sounder basis than that of this country. Rendering the administration of Irish affairs more English would not render them more efficient. Neither did he think that upon the score of economy anything would he gained if the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman were carried into effect. The salary of the Lord Lieutenant was about £20,000; the expenses of his household about £3,600; those connected with the Chief Secretary's office £12,000; amounting in all to a sum of £35,600 per annum. He found, however, that the expense of maintaining the Home Office here was £24,400, the Colonial £29,160, the Foreign £67,189, and the War £140,000, and taking these as the basis of his calculation, as well as taking into account the necessity which there would be for constant communication between England and Ireland, he could not help thinking that the office of the proposed Secretary of State would not cost the country less than £30,000 per annum. Then there would be the necessity of providing a suitable building for the discharge of the duties of the new functionary, which would cost at least £100,000, as well as making compensation to the holders of existing offices. There was also the opinion of the late Sir Robert Peel, that if the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland was to be abolished, an annual grant to the amount of the salary should for some years be given for the improvement of the city of Dublin, so that upon the score of economy the policy of the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman was somewhat more than doubtful, while there could be no doubt that if it were carried into operation the interests of the city of Dublin would be seriously affected. This city has already had sad experience of the consequence of drawing closer the bond of union between the two countries. In 1800 there were resident in Dublin four Archbishops, one Duke, three Marquesses, forty-one Earls, twenty-one Viscounts, nineteen Barons, and twelve Bishops, whose annual incomes exceeded £2,000,000 a year. At present there wore but three Peers, church or lay, who had houses in Dublin; their united incomes did not exceed £20,000. He would ask the hon. Member for Armagh how, if he evaded discussion upon this occasion, he would propose to meet the next suggestion which would follow if the present Motion were successful? There would speedily be a Motion for the abolition of the Law Courts, and the same arguments which applied to the present Motion would apply to that proposition. The only new feature in the debate would be, judging from a speech lately made by him, the course which the Member for Stroud would take. He did not allude to that speech in which he so clearly stated how the course pursued by the noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, rendered it impossible for him to continue at the head of the Liberal party and could only lead to his expulsion from office—a speech in accordance with his political principles, and highly creditable to his political foresight; but to that to his constituents, in which he stated that he resigned an office conferring large emoluments and extensive patronage solely because there was literally nothing for him to do. Had he stated that it was one in which he did not do anything, it would he more in accordance with public opinion in Ireland. The common descrip- tion of the Government of Ireland, when he was there, was—Carlisle did the dancing, Horsman the hunting, and Larcom the business. He (Colonel French) from his own knowledge could state that a harder-worked man than Colonel Larcom was not in the service of Her Majesty. It was rather surprising to hear that the Secretary for Ireland had no duties to perform, and he (Mr. French) was not able to speak with authority upon that point; but the late Attorney General for Ireland was present, and could, perhaps, inform the House that there were some important duties which the Irish Secretary might be expected to perform. He not only disputed the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Horsman's) assertion that there were no duties attached to the office; but also his statement that in resigning it he gave up large emoluments and extensive patronage. Those who had filled that office had ever found that the expenses of entertaining company, and other circumstances, completely swallowed up the whole allowance made, large as it undoubtedly was, and, certainly, no one could be more hospitable or munificent in his entertainments than the right hon. Gentleman himself. With regard to patronage, he had always understood that the Irish Secretary had only the disposal of a few appointments, chiefly in the police and post office. He would, however, state the cause which rumour assigned for the retirement of the right hon. Gentleman, who would have an opportunity of denying it if it was incorrect. It was said that there was a vacancy in the postmastership of a small town in Kilkenny—Callan—and, upon the recommendation of the townspeople, the name of a certain person was suggested to the right hon. Gentleman by the county Members. The right hon. Gentleman said he would send the name to the Postmaster General for confirmation; but Lord Carlisle, instead of appointing that person, gave the appointment to the owner of the town. Whether that was the course usually adopted towards the right hon. Gentleman he could not say; but the fact was that the owner of the town was Lord Carlisle's nephew. If the circumstances were as he had stated, it was not at all surprising that the right hon. Gentleman should have declined to continue in the office of Irish Secretary. When, however, the right hon. Gentleman talked of the utter inutility of the office, he should remember the different opinions which had been expressed by Sir R. Peel, by Lord Glenelg, the late Lord Ellesmere, Lord St. Germans, and the Duke of Wellington, the last of whom, for military and civil reasons, strongly objected to the abolition of the office, and declared that the proceedings he found on coming into office necessary to adopt, could not have been carried out, without in Ireland an officer with the power or authority of the Lord Lieutenant. The hon. Member for Sheffield had not recollected that the wishes of the people of Ireland must on such a question as this be consulted. He had overlooked the many important functions attaching to the office of Lord Lieutenant—that there were more than forty Acts of Parliament in the Administration of which the Lord Lieutenant is personally mixed up. That the noble Lord the head of the late Government had pointed this out, and declared it to be impossible to carry it on by correspondence —that the noble Lord stated the difficulty of finding a sufficient substitute obliged the Government in 1850 to abandon their Bill. This was a question of sufficient importance to be met by a direct vote, and it was one which should only be made by the Minister of the day, who had provided some other means for carrying on the Government of Ireland, who could explain what the substitute was to be—who could on the part of Her Majesty promise periodically to hold Courts in Dublin, who could give them an assurance that their Law Courts would be maintained, and who could carry in that House the compensation to which Dublin was entitled. Until this proposition was made by the Government, and justified by some sufficient scheme to supply the void which its adoption would cause, he should certainly decline to consider the question, and could only meet the Motion by a direct negative.

LORD NAAS, who was indistinctly heard, said he should endeavour to show to the House that the object which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had in view was not so easy of attainment as he appeared to imagine, and that there were many difficulties attending the consideration of this question, which, as it appeared, had not presented themselves to his mind. He himself should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Armagh, upon the ground that it would be unadvisable to effect so great a change in the government of Ireland without being quite certain that the system of government and mode of administration to be substituted, would be sufficient for the pur- pose, and would effect a decided improvement. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman had remarked upon certain inconveniences and anomalies, which arose from the present system, yet he had failed to show that the mode of government of Ireland, which he proposed to substitute, would remove those inconveniences or get rid of those anomalies. In dealing with this question, it would be as well to dismiss from consideration the financial part of it, for, whether the cost were £20,000 or £50,000, he was sure the House of Commons would never begrudge the amount, if it was thought to be necessary for the proper administration of Irish Government. He should also dismiss from his consideration the suggestion which had been made, that the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant would injuriously affect the trade, the commerce, and the interests of Dublin. Those interests, no doubt, were deserving of consideration; but if it could be shown that a proposed change would be for the advantage of Ireland generally, and the country at large, the interests of a particular class ought to not be allowed to prevent it. The objections which he saw to the present Motion arose from difficulties connected with the administration of the Government of Ireland, the importance of which the hon. and learned Gentleman by no means appeared to have appreciated. It would be well for the House to consider the system of Government which now existed in Ireland. It was all very well to pay how beneficial it would be, both for this country and for Ireland, if there existed a perfect similarity between the two, in respect to laws, institutions, and the system of administering the Government; but there were considerations which rendered such a consummation extremely difficult. The administration of the Government of Ireland, as compared with that of England, was essentially different, for while local self-government was the pervading spirit of administration here, that of Ireland might be said to be an eminently central system. The influence of the Government, as administered in Ireland, pervaded all the departments of the State, and prevailed through all its ramifications. It would require considerable discretion, ability, and care, to do away at once with a system which had obtained so long in Ireland, and had, upon the whole, worked advantageously. Though that was not the proper place to do so, it might be curious o trace the history of the mode of govern- ment in Ireland, and to show how a central system always prevailed—how, after the Conquest, Norman institutions were engrafted upon those of Celtic clanship and chieftainry, instead of being, as in England, engrafted on the Saxon system which was eminently self-governing; then, how for many years English influence and interests were maintained by the military prowess of the Knights of the Pale—how rebellion and forfeitures continued that system for many generations—how the penal laws continued it—and, lastly, how it came to be that the only problem to be solved in Ireland was, not how to govern Ireland, but how to govern the dominant class that governed the rest of the population. When the whole of the Irish people were admitted to equal rights and privileges, it was found necessary to adapt the system of government to the altered state of things. But still the system was, and continued now to be, a central system. He might be permitted to remind the House what the mode of government was, which had been established since the beginning of this century, how it differs from that pursued in England, and how the office of Lord Lieutenant was a part and parcel of the whole system. In 1827, by an Act of the 7th and 8th of George IV., courts of petty sessions, to the number of 600, were remodelled, and the effect of this remodelling was to bring them more under the control of the Government. Then, in 1836, stipendiary magistrates, of whom there were now 71, were appointed throughout the country. Those magistrates were in constant communication with, and received their orders from the Government, and administered their functions under the immediate supervision of the central power. Again, the constabulary was a force which in its organization was altogether peculiar to Ireland. The first regular police force in Ireland was established in 1814, but the constabulary, as it now existed, was organized in 1836. It is now wholly paid for and controlled by the State, and is commanded and regulated by an Inspector General. This important functionary has an office in Dublin Castle; he is in daily communication with the executive Government, and is obliged to consult on all occasions and matters of importance with the Chief or Under Secretary. That constabulary force had been embodied for upwards of twenty years, and he believed its existence had been an unmixed blessing to the country. Again, there were the Assistant Barristers, who performed the duties of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions in this country, and were directly appointed by the Government, and acted in communication with them. There was also the Poor Law system, of the Board of which both the Chief and Under Secretaries were members. Again, public prosecutions are conducted almost entirely under the direction of the Crown. Those facts showed how the influence of the Government of Ireland pervaded every department of the State, and ran through all its ramifications, and how difficult it would be to alter the existing system. Of that central system the Lord Lieutenant was the mainspring and head, and his duties were neither light nor few. He had in reality most important functions to perform, requiring the exercise of as much ability, prudence, and care as those which devolved on any member of the Executive Government of this country. He was regularly consulted in all the important matters of administration in the departments which he (Lord Naas) had enumerated; and he believed that no man who had been at any time connected with the. Government of Ireland would deny that the influence of the Lord Lieutenant was perceptible in the whole of the government of that country. He was responsible to the country and Parliament for the preservation of the public peace, and large powers were given to him for that purpose. This was a duty fraught with anxiety. The noble Lord who recently presided over the government in Ireland with so much ability, could testify how much firmness, prudence, and consideration was required to put an end to the miserable state of things which existed at Belfast last year. Again, when a general election occurred in England it was usual to remove from the places of election to a distance the troops stationed in the neighbourhood. In Ireland the custom was exactly the reverse. At the last general election more than 20,000 armed men were put in motion in that way by the Government, and the Lord Lieutenant was responsible for the proper discharge of so delicate and difficult a duty. The Lord Lieutenant had also to discharge duties similar to those performed by the Home Secretary in. England. On him devolved the exercise of the prerogative of mercy; many matters of a minor nature were continually brought under his notice, and an alteration could hardly take place in a gaol, or a convict be discharged, a prisoner be removed, or a lunatic provided for—[A laugh]—without his direction. Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but still what he stated were facts. He did not mean to say that the Lord Lieutenant was obliged to look into every individual case, but he did so whenever any difficulty arose or anything unusual occurred. He (Lord Naas) thought he had said enough to show that the duties daily devolving on the Lord Lieutenant were important, that they required great ability and experience, and frequently demanded the exercise of the nicest judgment. There were three modes in which it had been from time to time proposed to substitute a different form of Government in Ireland from the present. The first of these was, that the office of Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary should be abolished, and that the whole government of Ireland should devolve upon the Home Secretary, with an additional under Secretary of State for the Home Department. That was not the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, but it was one that had been repeatedly brought forward and urged upon the House by those who supported the principle of what he might call ultra-centralization. Now, he thought it quite impossible that any one man, however great his talents and experience at the Home Office, could be charged with the performance of such duties as the government of Ireland necessarily demanded. He believed that the business of the Home Office was quite sufficient to occupy the attention of the ablest man, and he was sure that if the scheme was adopted, it would be found impossible to transact in a satisfactory manner the affairs of Ireland. Her interests would inevitably be left to the care of a subordinate or irresponsible officer. The second scheme, which was in some degree that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, was that the office of Lord Lieutenant should merge into that of Secretary of State, with all the departments of his office in London, where consultations could take place between the Irish Minister and Irish representatives; and it was alleged that the former, being a Member of the Cabinet, would be in a position to advance Irish interests more powerfully with his colleagues. He was far from saying that it would be impossible to carry out this plan, or that it was one which might not be attended with many advantages, but it was one that could not fail to cause much inconvenience. The personal intercourse between the heads of Departments and private individuals that took place at the Castle of Dublin on questions of the utmost importance to Ireland were of great advantage in promoting the interests of that country; and though it might be said that the principal inconvenience caused by this scheme would be the two or three days that would elapse before communications could pass between Dublin and London, yet those personal interviews would be rendered almost impossible, and the same facilities that now existed for considering important questions would no longer exist. He did not say the objections to the scheme were insurmountable, but still they were such as ought to receive the most anxious consideration of the House. The third scheme proposed was to dispense with the office of Lord Lieutenant; to appoint a Secretary of State with the municipal part of his office in Dublin, to be worked by an Under Secretary during the Session of Parliament, that all regal state and splendour should be given up except when there were visits of the Sovereign, but that the Secretary should reside in Ireland during the recess. This plan, he need hardly say, would necessarily require much correspondence, as the Secretary of State would be separated from his offices, and great difficulty and confusion in the transaction of business would be the consequence. These different schemes were all open to very serious objections, and he thought they ought to be well considered by the House before an alteration so important as that now proposed was adopted. In bringing forward this Motion the hon. and learned Member had failed to prove that there were any great evils in the Government of Ireland which demanded such a change. No one would deny that Ireland had improved within the last ten years in a most extraordinary manner. Indeed, the progress she had made was little short of miraculous, and he believed that the Government of the country had had something to do with that improvement. He should be sorry to attribute to human laws or institutions these good gifts which Providence had vouchsafed to his country; but, at all events, it was quite clear that no pernicious or blighting influence had been exercised on the part of the Government that retarded or interfered with the great improvements that had taken place. So far from that, the Government of Ireland had gone with the times; the officials intrusted with the management of her affairs had done all in their power to promote her interests; and he believed the improvement of the country had been on the whole advanced by the judicious measures taken, and the deep in- terest in her welfare manifested by those who had held the office of Lord Lieutenant. It had been said the Castle of Dublin was a seat of intrigue. As far as he had been able to investigate the matter, he did not believe there was any solid foundation for the stories told of political intrigue. There may have been intrigues formed in the Castle, but are there none in Downing Street? And he did not believe that the class is more numerous in Ireland than here in Downing Street. The noble Lord the Member for London, in his speech in introducing a measure for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy in 1850, said the existence of the office tended to keep up party spirit—that the most illustrous men were unable to conquer the faction by which they were opposed, that the illustrous Wellesley was insulted, that the gallant Anglesey was called Algerine Anglesey, that Lord Haddington was called a partisan, and that the gentlemen of Ireland refused to attend Lord Normanby's Court. Nothing of the the kind has occurred of late years. He was sure the noble Lord who lately held the office of Lord Lieutenant, would bear him out in saying that during the whole time he was in Ireland he had been received with the greatest kindness, respect, and hospitality by men of the most opposite opinions, and he might confidently say the same thing with regard to the noble Lord who now held that office. If they looked at the list of noblemen and gentlemen who attended his first levee, they would find it made up of persons belonging to all sects and shades of politics. There was a strong feeling in Ireland that the Castle was neutral ground — a place where all parties might meet and enjoy each other's society; but though he stated those opinions, he was far from wishing to conceal his belief that a party was growing up in Ireland in favour of the change proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Public opinion in Ireland was daily gaining strength. It is more moderately, and therefore more forcibly expressed, than it used to be, and the Irish people now paid less attention to party politics and more to practical questions. This question was, among others, much discussed in Ireland, and he thought it might safely be left in the hands of the Irish people, but whether the people of Ireland were in favour of this change or not, of one thing he was certain, that it would never be forced upon them by the votes of English Members in that House. If any-thing would render the consideration of this matter distasteful to the feelings of the Irish nation, it would be an impression on their minds that their opinions and desires were not sufficiently consulted on so important a question. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not give ear to the Motion proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, and would not force upon an unwilling people a change in the administration of their affairs which it was possible they might at no distant day themselves demand.


There was much in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield in which I concurred; while, on the other hand, there was much in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the previous question from which I cannot but altogether dissent. In particular I differ from the view which he takes of the office of Lord Lieutenant, as resting on a compact between Great Britain and Ireland, that office being, in his view, as I understood him, stipulated for in the Act of Union. It is dangerous to maintain a negative without more opportunity for examination than has occurred since the hon. Gentleman made his speech, hut I will nevertheless venture to affirm with considerable confidence that there is nothing in the stipulations of the Act of Union which relates to the office of Lord Lieutenant. My hon. Friend (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald), who is familiar with the Act, confirms me in this assertion. Many subjects are treated of in the Act of Union, but the office of Lord Lieutenant is not included among them, although there is a provision by which the Crown is enabled, although not compelled, to keep in existence a separate Privy Council for Ireland. The argument I deduce from that silence is directly the reverse of that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Armagh (Mr. Miller), because if it had been the policy of Mr. Pitt and those who framed the Act of Union, that the Lord Lieutenancy should be retained and should be regarded as perpetual, they would have inserted in the Act of Union a stipulation to that effect. I must therefore draw the inference that it was not the intention of the parties to that Act that the office of Lord Lieutenant should be a permanent and perpetual office, and they therefore did not make the same stipulation as was made with respect to the Established Church of Ireland. The reason for that exception is quite apparent. Before the Union, Ireland was a dependency of this country, and I subscribe to the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) in considering the office of Lord Lieutenant as a relic of the provincial and subordinate character of Ireland. The Government of Ireland before the Union resembled in some respects that of the colonial governments. Ireland had a separate Legislature, with a Viceroy at its head. The Viceroy was an essential Member of the Parliament, and a message from the Lord Lieutenant was delivered to the Irish House of Parliament as a message from the Crown is delivered to the Parliament of England. The office of Lord Lieutenant, before the Union, was thus an essential component of the constitution of Ireland, and it was impossible that any question could then arise as to the abolition of that office. When the Union was carried into effect, the office of Lord Lieutenant was allowed to continue after the Irish Parliament had been abolished. The character of the office, however, was essentially altered, for he became merely the head of a number of administrative offices. At that time steam navigation was not discovered, vessels beat about for a week in winter between Holyhead and Dublin, communication was interrupted, and difficulties would have arisen if there had been no undoubted head of the administrative departments in Ireland. Moreover, many difficulties of another kind would have presented themselves which do not now exist, For example, there were separate Exchequers for Ireland and England, a state of things which was subsequently abolished by the consolidation of the English and Irish Exchequers. In addition to the difficulties existing at that time, there have been created since the Union various independent departments in Ireland. There has been, for instance, a department of police created, and a large force of police exists, which discharges many of the duties heretofore performed by the military. The head of this police is in Dublin. There is also a department for the administration of the Poor Law; and these constitute two important departments of administration in Ireland which have a local character, and which must be administered by their respective heads if the office of Lord Lieutenant did not exist. On the other hand, certain revenue departments, such as Customs, Excise, and Stamps, which were formerly administered by revenue boards in Dublin, are now drawn to a centre in London, so that the separate revenue boards are swept away, and the whole of the revenue service is consolidated. In that respect an argument for dispens- ing with the superintendence of the Lord Lieutenant has accrued since the Act of Union. By the increase of intercourse, too, by railways, steam navigation, and the electric telegraph under the sea between Ireland and England, great facilities exist for carrying on the Government of Ireland which did not prevail when the Act of Union was passed. Therefore we should not he considering the entire change in the character of the office of Lord Lieutenant, and the alteration which the administrative departments of Dublin have undergone since 1800, if we looked to the permanent continuation of the office of Lord Lieutenant. It has now become an anomaly, and has lost all those peculiarities which rendered it for a time not only expedient, but, as I believe, absolutely necessary. This House must, I think, come to the resolution to consider the office as temporary, and as only existing because it is a less objectionable and more convenient mode of administration than that which it is proposed to substitute for it. Therefore, with regard to the first part of the Resolution of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I should be prepared, under certain circumstances, to assent to it. But then his Resolution contains a second branch, which provides not only for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, but the substitution of a department of a Secretary of State charged with the affairs of Ireland. Looking at the mere question of expense, there would be, I think, no very great saving from the substitution of the department of a Secretary of State for that of a Lord Lieutenant. The hon. and learned Gentleman puts down the cost of the Lord Lieutenant at £50,000 a year. He did not give the items, and I am at a loss to know how he produces so large a result. The salary of the Lord Lieutenant is £20,000, and allowing £5,000 for the household, and some expenses for the maintenance of the buildings in Phoenix Park and the Castle, the office of Lord Lieutenant may cost £30,000. But the office of Chief Secretary must exist in some form or other. The cost of a Secretary of State, two Under Secretaries, and the establishment necessary for the office of a Secretary of State, will not be much less than £15,000 or £20,000. In a transition of this kind there must he certain pensions attending the change, and it is certain that, for some time to come, the economy from such a change would be extremely small. If the change ought to be made, it must be made not on grounds of economy, but of improved administration. I come now to the question, whether it is expedient to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant, and to substitute the department of a Secretary of State charged with the affairs of Ireland. There is certainly a precedent for this in the former appointment of a Secretary of State charged with the affairs of Scotland. In a constitutional point of view, therefore, the proposal is free from objection; but the question is, whether it is on the whole advisable. The proposal is one which was made some years ago by my noble Friend the Member for the city of London, when he was at the head of the Government, to abolish the Lord Lieutenancy. I believe I gave my vote for that measure. Since that Bill was before the House, we have created a fourth Secretary of State, by dividing the Colonial and War Departments; and the question arises, whether it is expedient to constitute a fifth Secretary of State. That appointment somewhat alters the position of the question, and moreover since that time, the state of Ireland has become more tranquil, and less ground exists for the institution of a separate department for Irish affairs. Looking to the matter as it rests at present, I am not disposed to accede to the proposal for the creation of a fifth Secretary of State, charged with the affairs of Ireland, in substitution for the Lord Lieutenant. What would be the position of a Secretary of State for Ireland? He would necessarily be a Member of the Cabinet. During the recess would he be required to visit Ireland, to have a residence in Dublin, to entertain there as would become a person in his position, and would he not be necessarily called to attend the meetings of the Cabinet which take place during the recess for preparing the measures of the ensuing Session? If he is to reside in Ireland during the recess and to entertain in Dublin, why then his position to a considerable degree would resemble that of the officer whose post we are now asked to abolish. On the other hand, if the duty of residence is expected of him, he must go away in an inconvenient manner, and perform duties which he would be incompetent properly to discharge, if he had also to attend the meetings of the Cabinet. Therefore I see a difficulty with regard to the proper and convenient discharge of his duties in the constitution of the chief officer as Secretary of State for Ireland. I confess it seems to me that we must look to the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, and that this House ought to be prepared to press whatever Government may be in power at the time, for the abolition of that office, whenever it may be possible to govern Ireland without the existence of a separate Irish department. I do not think myself that the time is very distant when it will he possible from the Home Office to give all those general directions which, in the comparatively tranquil state of Ireland, it will be necessary to issue for the superintendence of Irish affairs. The main departments in Ireland will still retain their local character. The police, the Poor Law Department, will be governed from Dublin, and the same rule will apply to prisons, lunatic asylums, and other branches of local government, although there may be certain important questions upon which reference will be necessary to the home Government. Whenever the time shall come when the government of Ireland may be conducted upon the same principle as the government of Scotland, when there will be no necessity for daily superintendence by a local head such as the Lord Lieutenant, then I think the Lord Lieutenancy ought to be abolished without the substitution of such a department as my hon. and learned Friend contemplates. But until that time arrives— and I am not prepared to say that it has arrived at this moment—it appears to me better to retain the present organization, which, at all events, has historical recollections on its side, which has assumed a form, to a certain extent, acceptable both to the people of Dublin and the general population of Ireland, and which has therefore recommendations that any new department, constituted for the separate government of Ireland, would want. As long as Ireland requires a separate department, it seems to me, on the whole, desirable to retain the Lord Lieutenancy; but when the time shall come (and I do not believe it is very distant) when it is possible to govern Ireland without a separate head of a department in Dublin, then, in my opinion, the Lord Lieutenancy ought to be abolished. I will merely add that I shall give my vote for the Motion of the previous question, of which the hon. Member for Armagh has given notice.


said, that the Amendment of which he had given notice, to leave out the latter part of the Motion, which pledged the House to support the appointment of a Secretary of State for Ireland, would accomplish precisely that which the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested ought to be done, and he thought therefore that if any justification were required for having placed that notice on the paper, it would be found in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, when he alluded to that Amendment, looked out for the motives which he presumed had actuated him, and, as was the custom of the hon. and learned Gentleman, selected the worst which could actuate him. The hon. and learned Gentleman had imputed to him a dog-in-the-manger spirit—that because he could not get a Secretary of State for Scotland, he would not allow a Secretary of State for Ireland. Many well-intentioned hut weak-minded persons wished to see a Secretary of State for Scotland. he was never one of them, and for exactly the same reason he did not desire to have a Secretary of State for Ireland. The real and substantial reason for abolishing the Lord Lieutenancy was to make the three Kingdoms truly a United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Member told the Irish Members to forget that they were Irishmen. He said by no means let them forget that they were Irishmen, but let Irish Members and Scotch Members remember that Ireland and Scotland were integral parts of the one great British kingdom. He quite agreed with the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland (Lord Naas) that this Motion must be carried with the consent of the Irish Members, but he did not think that it was not to be debated in that House. He rather thought from what had passed to-night that Irish Members were coming very much to the opinion that instead of the Lord Lieutenancy being an advantage to Ireland it was a positive loss. [Mr. VANCE: NO!] He heard the "no!" of the hon. Member for Dublin, but the interests of Dublin were not exactly the same as those of Ireland. The expenditure for the Viceregal Court might benefit the shopkeepers of Dublin, but not the rest of Ireland. He did not think that Dublin was the making of Ireland, but that Ireland was the making of Dublin, and he deemed it a mark of derogation, as if the interests of Ireland were provincial, to have a Lord Lieutenant governing the country. The noble Lord in rather an Irish fashion, called the govern- went by a delegate of the Queen, self-government. [Lord NAAS: Central government!] He thought that the noble Lord said it was self-government; but if the noble Lord was in favour of a centralizing government, it meant the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy, and that was precisely what should be done. There should be one Home Office for the British Empire, with Parliamentary Under Secretaries in three separate departments, if necessary, for England, Scotland, and Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was only a question of time. He thought that there was no time like the present, and that what ought to be done should always be done now. There had been a change of Ministry, and the present Government should show that there were an efficient Administration, ready to pass measures which were only waiting for some Government to take up. In another great dependency they were about to make a change in the form of government at a period of disturbance, but that objection did not apply to Ireland. The country was perfectly tranquil, and he did not believe there ever was a more popular Lord Lieutenant than the present. It was the very time to make a change. There was no dislike to the individual who filled the office, and the abolition of the office would rest upon the merits of the question, as it would be rather against the merits of the individual. He hoped that the Gentlemen on the Treasury bench would not promise a change next year, when they were to have another great change by a Reform Bill, but would be prepared to show they meant to do that about which others were content to talk.


said, that as no proposition for the abolition of the Viceroyalty had yet come before the House unaccompanied by a scheme for creating an office in substitution of that of the Lord Lieutenant, the observations of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last went for nothing. He (Mr. Esmonde) was sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield had not been at any pains to ascertain what had been the feeling of eminent statesmen on this subject. There were a host of authorities arrayed against the abolition of the office, chiefly those who had discharged the functions of the Irish Secretaryship. Sir Robert Peel, who had filled that office, had declared on many occasions that if a separate Secretary of State were to be appointed for Ire- land his absence from the country, which would be unavoidable, as he must have a seat in Parliament, would be most injurious to the transaction of business. Mr. Goulburn had said, that the only substitute for the Viceroy would be a Secretary of State, who would be obliged to reside in England; and in that case he asked, how the Secretary was to know anything about the condition of Ireland? It had been said that jobbing and intrigue of the worst sort prevailed at the Irish Court. As a Member of Parliament, and as a country gentleman, he had necessarily many communications with the Castle of Dublin, and he must say he never saw any reason to arrive at such a conclusion. But let the House hear what Sir Robert Peel said with regard to that. That great statesman gave it as his opinion, that in the absence of the Secretary of State in this country, the greatest license would be afforded to intrigue. Mr. Canning had expressed the same opinion almost in the same words. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated at the time of the Union, no engagement was entered into to keep up the Lord Lieutenancy. But if the honour of public men was to go for anything, that statement did not present the actual facts. Mr. Pitt, in supporting the measure, held out to the people of Ireland that, though the Parliament would be done away with, there would still be the head of the executive in Ireland. He said that the metropolis of Ireland had no reason to feel alarm for its prosperity, for it would still continue to be the residence of the Viceroy and the seat of Government. Sir J. Newport, who had upheld liberal opinions when they were not fashionable, had said, that there could be no measure by which the feelings of the people of Ireland would be more likely to be exasperated than the abolition of the Viceroyalty; and Mr. Martin expressed a similar opinion in the same debate. Mr. Hume's opinion had been quoted in favour of the present proposition; but it should be borne in mind that when the late Mr. Hume made a similar Motion to this, he based it on the ground that there was a deficiency of revenue in Ireland; and he expressly said, that if there had been a surplus revenue, the people of Ireland might reasonably have remonstrated against any change; but as the case stood the people of England had a right to complaint of the expense of the present arrangement. Now, however, the revenue, which was then £4,000,000, had risen to £7,000,000, and he had a right under the altered circumstances of the case to quote the opinion of Mr. Hume in support of the retention of the Lord Lieutenant. De feared that in bringing forward this subject, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield had not consulted the feeling, either of the Irish representatives, or the Irish people. He assured the House that the unsettled state of this question had done much injury to property in Dublin. He had been assured by a Gentleman well conversant with that city, and who had once represented it in Parliament, that nothing would be more disastrous to the trade and prosperity of the city than the abolition of the Viceroyalty. The rateable property of Dublin was now £600,000 a year, and he was assured that it would he reduced one-third if this proposition were carried into effect. Indeed so intimately was the existence of the Court connected with the prosperity of the city that houses were let at a certain yearly rent so long as the office of Viceroy should be continued. Not long ago, a very numerous meeting of Gentlemen was held in Dublin, by which this proposition was unhesitatingly and unanimously condemned. He agreed with what the noble Lord the Member for London had said on a previous occasion, that whatever were the merits of the change it ought to be made at the instance of the Executive Government, and not of a private Member. Believing that it was opposed to the wishes of the people of Ireland, and that it was a violation of the compact made at the time of the Union, he should give it his strenuous opposition.


said, that one most important element in the consideration of the question had up to that moment been studiously kept out of the discussion, and that element was the feeling of the Irish people; but perhaps it was not unnatural, as the Motion had proceeded from an English Member, that the question should have been regarded in an English or Scotch, rather than in an Irish point of view. It was principally for the purpose of supplying the omission to which he referred that he then rose to trespass for a few moments on the attention of the House. He believed the Irish people generally were strongly opposed to the abolition of this time-honoured office. He thought that a more bald or inconclusive argument than that which had been addressed to the House by the right hon. Member for Radnor he had never heard. Because, for- sooth, the Exchequer of Ireland had been merged in that of England, and because the Parliament no longer sat in Dublin, there was no need for a Lord Lieutenant; because centralization had been carried to this extent, therefore everything was to be centralized; but he looked round the world and saw many places in which viceroyalty was considered necessary, and where Parliaments were not present. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that a less objectionable and more convenient mode of administration might be substituted, but he had failed to indicate the mode alluded to. It was proverbially more easy to destroy than to create, and, although the destruction of this time-honoured edifice had been proposed by many, no architect had come forward sufficiently skilful to suggest even a plan for a new construction. A good many phrases were usually made use of in the course of these discussions which had very little meaning; such, for instance, as that the maintenance of the Lord Lieutenancy was desired only by the shopkeepers of Dublin. He denied that the interest in this question was confined to the people of Dublin. Dublin was the metropolis of Ireland; it was the pride of Irishmen to maintain the splendour of their metropolis; and he was persuaded that the more this institution—which was dear to the affections of the Irish people— was attacked the more would they rally round it, and prove their attachment to the Sovereign by their endeavours to preserve intact the Viceregal Court in Dublin. Ireland no doubt had had a large infusion of the English and Scotch element, but it was a well-known fact that emigrants to countries became in time more national in their instincts than the natives themselves. Such was eminently the case with regard to the United States of America. He believed that the infusion of strangers had done good in Ireland. The race had become mixed, but the national sentiment remained intact, and it was only natural that Irishmen should be glad to see members of the most distinguished families in the empire governing their country in their own capital and in the name of their be-loved Sovereign. He should further observe that what might he called the personnel of the establishment had been for the most part, and more especially within the last few years, eminently satisfactory. Party feeling prevailed to a great extent in Ireland—he was himself a strong partisan; but he felt convinced that it was most desirable that the administration of the country should be committed to some one who was in no way connected with local prejudices and passions. The duties of the office had been most successfully fulfilled by the late Lord Lieutenant, and he believed that the present Lord Lieutenant also owed much of his great popularity to the conviction which prevailed throughout Ireland that his high functions would be discharged with impartiality. He thought, too, that if the office had in modern times fallen into any disrepute, that arose from the fact that oven within his recollection gross partiality had been shown in the discharge of its duties. But as long as the business of the office was conducted in a pure and lofty spirit the people of Ireland would rally for its maintenance, and he was sure that the Imperial Parliament would not disregard their wishes.


said, it appeared to him that the present time was eminently suited for legislation, as the Government was not hampered with arrears of business or promises. For himself he was opposed to the maintenance of the Vice Royalty, as he believed that the existing system under which the Irish administration was divided, between the English Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, was but a double Government, possessing all the weakness and irresponsibility inseparable from such an arrangement. Indeed, there was a third Government in the case whenever the Irish Chief Secretary was, as sometimes happened, a member of the Cabinet, and decided in that capacity on the course which should be taken by his supposed official superior. The Lord Lieutenant himself was in his (Mr. Dodson's) opinion a complete anomaly. He had none of the immunities of a constitutional monarch, for he might be vilified and abused to any extent; he was something of a colonial governor, but he did not possess the authority of such an officer; he was a party Minister without a seat in the Cabinet, and he seldom or ever appeared in Parliament to explain his conduct or defend his policy. Such a state might have been necessary when it was first established, but every year diminished the number of excuses by which its continuance could be defended. It should be remembered that with the present facilities for travelling it was easier for an Irish gentleman now to pay his respects to real royalty in London than it was for his grandfather to go through the same ceremony before sham royalty in Dublin. Then again, there was nothing at the present time to prevent Her Majesty from frequently visiting Ireland; and he would put it to Irish gentlemen whether they would not prefer one week of the sunshine of true sovereignty in Dublin to twelve months of the moonlight of the fictitious sovereignty of a Lord Lieutenant. [Mr. VANCE: No!] He felt sure that if the smiles of royalty beamed on the hon. Member he would change his opinion. He regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had encumbered his Resolution with a proposal for a fifth Secretary of State, to which he himself was most decidedly opposed. He was aware that many persons contended that the Home Office of this country was already overburdened with business; that it would be most unwise to transfer it to the administration of Ireland; but he could not help thinking that much of the labour of the Home Office arose from an unnecessary and a mischievous interference with the duties of local bodies throughout the country; and much good would result, both to England and to Scotland, if the necessity of giving a general superintendence to the conduct of Irish affairs were to afford a check to that evil. With these convictions, he should give his best support to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield.


said, he must congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield that he had at last obtained a second hon. Gentleman to accompany him into the lobby. Hitherto, with the exception of the hon. Member who seconded his Motion, no one had spoken in its support. He (Mr. Grogan), however, Lad observed with mingled feelings of gratification and dissatisfaction the course which the debate had taken. He was glad to hear that the Viceregal Government was not at present to be disturbed, but he regretted the intimation which had fallen from the Government, that it must be taken only as a temporary arrangement. On the part of the citizens of Dublin he deprecated those constant reopenings of the question, and he put it to the House whether, after so many leading statesmen had tried to find a substitute for the Lord Lieutenancy and had failed, it was right that this great question should be continually tampered with by gentlemen who were totally devoid of responsibility. He hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, satisfied with having expressed his kind wishes for the welfare of the Irish people, would no longer attempt to thrust upon them a change which they did not desire. It was a subject of great satisfaction to him as an Irishman that the House had arrived at the conclusion that the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant was not to be carried into effect in opposition to the feelings either of the Irish Members or the Irish people. There could be no doubt, he thought, that there was almost an unanimous opinion in Ireland in favour of the rentention of the Lord Lieutenancy. Numerous petitions had been presented in that sense both upon that and upon former occasions, while not a single petition had ever come before the House in favour of the abolition of the office. It might be urged that Dublin was principally interested in this question; but it should be remembered that Dublin was the metropolis of Ireland, and it would be admitted that whatever affected the metropolis of a country generally, ramified in its effects to the remotest extremity. He was satisfied, he repeated, that the office of Lord Lieutenant might be regarded as permanent, but, at the same time, he could not agree with many of the arguments which had been urged on both sides of the House. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, while arguing for the abolition of the office, had stated that after the Vice Regal court had ceased to exist, several important establishments would still remain in Dublin, mentioning among others the head quarters of the police and the office of the Poor Law Commissioners. Those institutions were, no doubt, very useful and important elements of the internal administration of the country; but the people of Ireland would prefer the Government of a Lord Lieutenant, the direct representative of their Sovereign, to that either of the police or of the Poor Law Commissioners. It had also been contended, that the Lord Lieutenancy ought to be abolished, because other important institutions, such as the Revenue and Stamp Offices had already been transferred to England. But that was the very system of which the people of Ireland complained. They were of opinion that centralization had been carried a great deal too far, and they believed that the administration of Irish affairs could not be conducted in England with the same efficiency and success as in Ireland. The strangest argument of all had been used by the last speaker. It was to the effect that the business now transacted by the Lord Lieutenant should be thrown upon the Home Office, in order to render that department, already overwhelmed with work, unable to intermeddle in the management of local affairs in England. Now, it was because the Irish people wished to be left to themselves and appreciated the advantages of local Government, that they objected to be deprived of a resident administration and handed over to an office in London. The case of Scotland had been cited; but was it a fact that the Scotch were happy and contented under the present system? Was it quite clear that if an option were given to them, they would not be glad to have a Lord Lieutenant? He had heard the direct contrary, and it so happened that the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, a Scotch nobleman, took an active part in an agitation got up some time ago for the vindication of Scottish rights and the alteration of the existing system of Government north of the Tweed. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had talked of Ireland being part and parcel of England. That was a fine phrase, but was it borne out by facts? Was that the policy adopted during the Irish famine, when poor Irishmen coming over to this country in search of employment, were pitilessly shipped back to their own shores; or was it followed when the Irish rate-in-aid had been extended to the wealthier Irish districts, while England had been carefully exempted from the burden? Where was the identity of interest in that case? He did not deny, however, that England had contributed largely on the occasion. It was the House of Commons which proposed to tax one portion of the country for the benefit of another. Let the hon. and learned Member, instead of uttering empty words and promises, endeavour to obtain for the Irish people some of the advantages which they ought to derive from their Union with England, and thus earn for himself their respect and gratitude. He did not believe that the people of Ireland, or at least any large portion of them, would ever be unanimous in favour of abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant. Then there was the difficulty of creating a fifth Secretary of State. He might give an illustration of the benefit derived from the presence of the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. A man was sentenced to death. Almost on the very day on which he was to be executed, fresh evidence was produced in the man's behalf—he was re- spited—further and conclusive evidence of the man's innocence was furnished, and his life was saved. But for the presence of the Lord Lieutenant he would have suffered death. He dissented altogether from the views of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, and he hoped that a strong expression of opinion on the part of the House would induce the hon. and learned Member in future to abstain from constantly originating these discussions, which only served to unsettle the public mind of Ireland.


said, that he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that a measure so important as the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland ought not to be carried through the House without the sanction and concurrence of the Irish representatives; but, unless his recollection failed him, the majority of the representatives for Ireland supported the Bill introduced by the noble Lord the Member for London in 1850, and the hon. Member for the county of Donegal (Mr. Conolly) if he was not mistaken, not only voted, but spoke in favour of that proposition. He was, therefore, at a loss to know what was the opinion of the Irish representatives on this subject. The hon. Members for Donegal and Waterford had fallen into the mistake of supposing that the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) proposed no substitute for the office he wished to abolish. On the contrary, the best proposition on this subject yet offered to the House was that suggested by that hon. Member — that there should be one principal Secretary of State for Home Affairs, with three Under Secretaries, one for England, another for Scotland, and another for Ireland, well acquainted with the laws and practices of the respective countries, and who would be responsible for legislation in respect to them. Nevertheless, he was prepared to vote for the Motion as it stood on the paper, if the Irish Members thought that there was business enough connected with their country for one Secretary of State, though he was opposed to the creation of such an office for Scotland. He agreed with the last speaker, that it was time that this question was brought to some definite issue, and he did not think that the House of Commons stood very well with the people in respect to it. On three different occasions his predecessor in the representation of the Montrose burghs (the late Mr. Hume) proposed a Motion similar to the present. It was received with approbation by the Liberal party in that House; and then the noble Lord the Member for London took the question under the wing of his Government in 1850, and carried it in the House of Commons; and yet the House last year—this Liberal House—presented the spectacle of following the Minister out into the lobby against the proposition. He saw nothing inopportune in the present time for the consideration of the question. From all that he had heard and read, he concluded that no man, was prepared to stand up for this office in all respects; and whenever any Motion upon the subject had been introduced, he had observed that it was mot by the previous question. Even those who were opposed to the present Motion had occasionally complained that the Lord Lieutenant interfered with the elections—that sometimes he exercised his office with great partiality; and that wise and beneficial measures were from time to time thwarted by what was called the backstairs influence of Dublin Castle. He was not prepared to say how far these statements were true, and whether the Lord Lieutenant meddled with and spoiled everything, or whether he was a mere nonentity, as some described him to be, whose only duty was to keep the good people of Dublin amused with dinner parties and dancing; but in either case he would support the Motion. One strong and valid reason in the minds of the Irish Members against such a Motion as the present was, that its success would withdraw the expenditure of a very large sum from Dublin. Such a consideration might influence the Members for Dublin in favour of this mock monarchy; but did the people in the north of Ireland approve the institution? It would appear strange if the House of Commons, after deciding by a large majority against the system of double government for India, should refuse to abolish a similar system of double government with respect to Ireland, which was open to all the objections of the shifting of responsibility which had been so successfully urged against the existing system in the case of India. The same complaint of divided responsibility existed in Scotland; and he had consequently given notice of a Motion for the appointment of an Under Secretary for that part of the United Kingdom, who should be in future responsible for Scotch legislation. He supported the Motion on another ground, which ought not to be treated lightly in that House. Many hon. Members in that House had made speeches on the hustings in favour of financial reform; and now, when they had an opportunity of carrying their eloquence into action, would they shrink from abolishing a totally useless expenditure? He dared say the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not listening to him, but thinking of his forthcoming budget; and if a deficiency had been left to the right hon. Gentleman as a legacy by his predecessors, the difficulty of his position entitled him to sympathy; but any Government that wished to be popular in the country, or to retain office for a lengthened time, ought in the first instance to look into the national expenditure. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman— whom he believed to be an excellent Liberal—would signalize his return to power by a revision of the Estimates, and he recommended him to begin by lopping off this unnecessary outlay. Such a step would at once strengthen the hands of the Ministry of which he was so distinguished a Member, and be applauded by wise and good men on both sides of the Channel.


said, as he was one of the few Irish Members who thought that this office ought to be abolished, he hoped he might be allowed to make a few observations upon the subject. He considered that the government of Ireland, by means of the Lord Lieutenant, was the government of that country by an inferior officer and in an inferior manner. All history showed that government by a deputy was inferior to government by the immediate action of the supreme power in the State, whatever that power might be. It must necessarily be deficient in prestige for want of greatness, deficient in power for want of dignity, and generally deficient in administrative talents, because the persons employed were usually young, inexperienced men, or men of inferior abilities. Ireland bore her fair share of the burdens of the State, and was therefore entitled to participate with the rest of the Kingdom in the benefits of a good Executive; but there could not be a good Executive Government in Ireland until they had there the same Government as they had in England and Scotland. As to the effect which it was alleged by the hon. Member for Dublin the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant would have upon the Irish metropolis, he believed that such an impression was most erroneous. Such an argument, he thought, was not only erro- neous, hut insulting to the people of Ireland. Dublin was a large seaport, containing 300,000 inhabitants, and contributing a million sterling per annum in Customs duties to the Imperial Exchequer. It boasted the third university in the United Kingdom, was the seat of the superior courts of law, and possessed all the various institutions consequent on its pre-eminence as the capital of a country with a population of 6,000,000 souls. It was absurd, therefore, to say that such a city would sustain a heavy loss and have its property destroyed from the withdrawal of a Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant was usually a nobleman of high rank and fortune, with an official income of £20,000 a year, and an establishment consisting of a number of officers and functionaries constituting his household. Every person must be aware of the great improvement that had taken place in Ireland within the last few years. There had been a great increase of wealth in the country. Belfast had improved enormously. Cork, Water-ford, and the other cities had also improved; but Dublin itself had improved the least of all. And yet it was said that that city would be seriously injured by the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant. Having expressed his opinion upon the abstract question of the removal of that high functionary, he would now come to the consideration of the particular Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. The question, first of all, was, whether or not the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend would remedy the evil complained of? If he (Mr. Dobbs) were right as to the injury arising from the government of Ireland by means of the Lord Lieutenant, on the ground that it was an inferior kind of government, as compared with that of the other parts of the United Kingdom, he submitted that that evil would not be remedied by the proposition of the hon. and learned Member. It could only be remedied by a complete amalgamation of the English and Irish Executive. He wished to place the government of Ireland under the Home Office. The magistrates of Mayo and of Suffolk should be appointed and removed on the same principles and by the same authority, and that authority a Cabinet Minister; and when a question arose in the county of Cork, it should be taken cognisance of by the Home Office in the same manner as if it had arisen in Yorkshire. The patronage of Ireland should be administered on the same principles and by the same man as was the patronage of England. When important questions arose in any part of Ireland, the Home Government should take cognizance of them in the same way as if they arose in Yorkshire or Lancashire. Now, the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield did not touch any of these points. His hon. and learned Friend proposed to create a Secretary of State for Ireland, but such a measure would not remove those objections to the system which at present existed. The same difference between one part of the empire and the other would thus be perpetuated. What was wanted was a complete amalgamation between the two Executives. Therefore, although he approved of the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant as an abstract question, he must vote against the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend. He concurred in opinion with the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland that they could do nothing satisfactorily in this matter until the people of Ireland declared themselves in favour of the change. When the people evinced a feeling in favour of the change, then the Government of the day, whoever they might be, would be compelled to make the change. He ventured to prophesy that that result would soon come about. He recollected some years ago, when the Repeal bubble was agitated, any man who spoke of the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant would have been denounced as a fool or a madman. He had, however, since then observed a change gradually going on. The north of Ireland was in favour of this change, and he believed that even in Dublin the feeling in support of the abolition of the viceroyalty was gradually gaining ground. The measure would be ultimately carried by the desire of the people themselves, and would, he was sure, complete that Union between England and Ireland, which he hoped would never be dissolved.


said, that although he was about to vote for the previous question he did not apply to it the interpretation which was put upon the Amendment by the hon. Gentleman by whom it had been proposed. It might be imagined, from the hon. Member's speech, that he desired the perpetual maintenance of the Lord Lieutenancy. He (Mr. Fortescue) was not anxious for the perpetuation of that office, but as he could not go the length of supporting the Resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield he would give his vote for the previous question. Every Member of that House, and especially every Irish Member, must feel the responsibility of dealing with the subject. Although he had little love for the institution itself, he could not but remember that it formed an ancient and vital ingredient of the Government of Ireland, and was interwoven with the habits, the feelings, and the traditions of the country. The reign of law and order in Ireland had not existed for so long a period as to justify the House in dealing, without the utmost caution, with an institution which was regarded by the people of that country as the emblem of authority and law. This important change had been proposed in a very moderate speech by an hon. and learned Gentleman whose general political liberality he (Mr. Fortescue) could not impugn, but who was more famous for destruction than for construction, and who had not brought the subject before the House in a manner which he thought calculated to insure the confidence or conciliate the feelings of the Irish people. When they saw a sweeping proposition of this nature made by a private Member of that House, and a Member of rather a destructive character, he did not think they were likely to regard it with much favour. It was scarcely to be expected that a private Member, and especially an English Member, could be intimately acquainted with the actual working of this institution, or with the feelings of the Irish people on the subject, and he must certainly be free from that sense of responsibility which would be felt by any Minister of the Crown who submitted to Parliament so important a proposition. The hon. and learned Gentleman recommended that a Secretary of State should be substituted for the Lord Lieutenant; but as he was not in a position to give any pledge that a substitute would be found for the Lord Lieutenant if the office were abolished, he (Mr. Fortescue) did not feel justified in supporting the Motion. They could not but remember the fate of the proposition for appointing a Secretary of State for Ireland when brought forward as part of the noble Lord's (Lord J. Russell) Bill in 1850. In that Bill there was a power given to Her Majesty to appoint such an officer, but it was by no means imperative, and though a deputation waited upon the noble Lord he objected to give any distinct promise that if the Bill was carried, that power would be acted upon. It was his opinion that the proposed change was one which was not worth making. Unless they removed from Dublin every vestige of the executive power, they would do nothing to improve the existing state of things. The late Sir Robert Peel was utterly opposed to the appointment of an Irish Secretary of State, believing that there would be a rivalry between the English Home Secretary and the Irish Home Secretary, who would be influenced by the pressure of the respective parties of each. He (Mr. Fortescue) could not but think that this fear had been greatly exaggerated. For his own part, if they were to abolish the Viceroyalty of Ireland he believed the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman was the only safe one to adopt. He wished he could believe that the evils of misgovernment in Ireland had been so far surmounted that that country could be treated legislatively in the same manner as England. It was but recently that Ireland could be said to be an united body politic. A generation or two ago the Irish population was made up not of one nation but of two nations on one soil, and it could not be concealed that strong, and very unfortunate, traces of the differences which had so long existed were still perceptible. Then again, it was impossible not to see that for the Government of Ireland much especial knowledge was required. It was a mistake to suppose because a man was well versed in English administration, that therefore he would be a good administrator for Ireland. On the contrary, the very fact of his being well acquainted with this country might induce one to believe that he would be likely to apply his supposed knowledge in an unfortunate manner. The differences which existed between the two countries were extremely great, and although it might be true that an assimilation of the law would in some cases he advantageous, yet on the other hand it might prove a great evil. Remembering the differences in the working of the Poor Laws and of the criminal law in the two countries, the nature of the County Courts in Ireland, the operation of that wise and beneficial institution the Incumbered Estates Court, the relations between landlord and tenant, and the position of the Established Church, it was evident that the administration of Irish affairs could not safely be tumbled into the Home Office, and that a knowledge of English affairs was not a safe guarantee for the good Government of Ireland. This conviction was forced upon him against his will, for he wished, indeed, he could bring himself to think that the administration of the whole of this empire could safely be intrusted to a single department. He wished, as far as was consistent with safety and justice, to carry to the furthest possible extent the Union and equality of the two countries. He believed the time would come for such a change, but he much doubted whether that time had yet arrived. Feeling this, he was compelled to exercise caution in giving his vote upon a proposal which merely issued from a private Member of Parliament. At the same time he must not be understood as expressing any particular love for the Lord Lieutenancy. As an Irishman, he never thought of that office without some feelings of shame and inferiority. He hoped the day would come when nothing would be interposed between the Irish people and the Imperial Crown. The Lord Lieutenant was popularly supposed to be the representative of Royalty; but the fact was that, however estimable, however high minded and good-intentioned the Lord Lieutenant might be, it was impossible for him to be anything but a party man. He admitted that party feeling did not rage as it once did in Ireland, but still, in the very nature of things, the Irish Viceroy must be a partisan. He concurred in the suggestion that, instead of the Lord Lieutenant, it would be desirable to have a Secretary of State with a seat in the Cabinet, occasionally residing in Ireland, and keeping himself au fait of Irish questions. Such an appointment would concentrate responsibility and tend very much to effective legislation for Ireland. Entertaining these views, he could not vote directly against the Motion, and so tend in any way to perpetuate the existing system; but, at the same time, he thought they ought to be tender of the feelings of the Irish people, and he certainly should not at the present moment attempt to press the Government to make at once so vital a change. He should wait for the time when, as he hoped, some Government would bring in a measure, not only to destroy this ancient and effete institution, but establish in its room fresh machinery of administration, which would confer far greater benefits upon Ireland, both as to local legislation and legislation in this House, than the present imperfect machinery could supply.


said, he regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roe- buck) had not left this matter in the hands of the Government instead of endeavouring to obtain a hostile vote against an office which he would he the last to abolish if he knew the country better. He had, however, ingeniously discovered an apple of discord, a bone of contention to throw between the two countries, which had led to great jealousy and misunderstanding, and which, if persisted in, would estrange and embitter the feelings of the population of Ireland against England. For his part, he was sorry also that the Motion had not been met by a direct negative instead of the previous question; because then the matter would have been brought to an intelligible issue. Agitation of this subject was most injurious both to Ireland and to the city of Dublin. His (Mr. Vance's) first objection to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman was that there was a contract made at the time of the Union to retain this office. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. C. Lewis, had stated that the Lord Lieutenancy was not mentioned at all in the Act of Union. But if it were not mentioned, declarations to that effect had been made by the most eminent statesmen of that day, Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh, and by every man who was then high in office. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the Privy Council of Ireland was mentioned in the Act of Union, and what would the Privy Council be without the Lord Lieutenant? In some countries it was not considered necessary to pass laws against offences repulsive to human nature, and which were never likely to happen. There were countries in which there were no laws against parricide or regicide; and it may have been thought quite unnecessary to provide for maintaining the Lord Lieutenancy. It was held on all sides that the consent of the Irish people must be obtained before any change was made. If that consent were tested by the result of the last division on this question, it would be found that only five Irish Members voted for the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. All those hon. Members came from the county of Antrim. One of them was the present hon. Member for Carrickfergus (Mr. Dobbs), and how it was that any jealousy was felt by the town of Belfast he (Mr. Vance) did not know; but such a jealousy did exist. The wonderful prosperity of this town had been contrasted with that of Dublin; but whilst the customs of the port of Belfast last year amounted to £3,000, those of Dublin amounted to £20,000. In Belfast there were no private streets, no public squares; it was a mere mercantile town, without the advantages of Dublin as respected trade. The question had been brought before the House on various occasions, and on every one of them those in favour of abolishing the Lord Lieutenancy had based their case upon different grounds. Sometimes they had advanced the ground of economy; at other times it was complained that the Lord Lieutenant brought over persons who became dependents of the Castle and a burden to the people. Then, again, it was said, that the whole institution was unpopular, and upon the present occasion a mixed ground had been taken up. As regarded the question of economy which had been touched upon by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), the people of Ireland did not look to the public money which was spent in Ireland in consequence of the existence of the office; but the fact was that a great number of the nobility and gentry were by reason of that institution induced to spend their private incomes in Ireland, and they were quite able to take care of themselves without the protection of the political economist who had succeeded the late Mr. Joseph Hume. Then the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) brought forward the question on social grounds. He said that there were endless heartburnings on the part of those who did not have the entrée to the Castle. Why, the fact was that every person of any rank had an unlimited entrée. This sufficiently appeared from the Vice Chamberlain's advertisements. Every one was admitted that had been presented—and no preference was given to one lady or gentleman more than to another. It was therefore untrue that heartburnings wore occasioned by any exclusiveness on the part of the Lord Lieutenant. It had been further said that compensation must be given to people for doing nothing in future. But there was one community to which they must grant compensation—it was the city of Dublin itself. Sir Robert Peel himself admitted that the city of Dublin might need compensation if the Lord Lieutenancy were abolished. Then it had been said that there were other towns in Ireland improving while Dublin remained stationary. But the population of Dublin had increased between the census of 1841 and that of 1851 by 20,000 persons, and that was of itself an improvement; and new buildings were being erected in every part of the city. The city of Dublin would fall into almost utter destruction if the office of Lord Lieutenant were abolished, and rents would be decreased 60 per cent. It had been stated that the Union would bring no injury to the city; but it had occasioned a depreciation of house property, and almost a bankruptcy of the whole community; They had gradually recovered, but now it was proposed to tear away the last fragment of the nationality and dignity of Ireland. One effect that would result would be a general absenteeism. Sir Robert Peel had said that splendid as the Court of England was it would he rendered more splendid by the attendance of Irish ladies and gentlemen, but then this additional splendour would be acquired at the expense of Dublin. The nobility and gentry would be attracted from their residences and country houses, and not only Dublin but Ireland would sensibly feel the injury. And although Sir Robert Peel voted with the noble Lord in 1850 he expressed sentiments that were strongly against the change. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) said he should prefer a Secretary of State occasionally resident in Dublin to a Lord Lieutenant at Dublin Castle, because whoever might fill the latter office was regarded as a strong partisan in Ireland, whereas a Secretary of State would not be liable to that imputation. But if an independent nobleman, acting as the representative of his Sovereign, was a partisan, what would a mere Secretary of State be? He certainly could move only in a partisan circle; whereas the Lord Lieutenant, whatever might be his politics, was always the most popular man in Ireland. As to the trade of Dublin, he might observe that it was dependent upon the influx of strangers; and, therefore, if the office of Lord Lieutenant were abolished, the trade of the city would suffer to an extent almost impossible to conceive, and he felt sure that the House would not like to see Dublin fall into ruin and decay. It was not true that in Dublin different opinions were entertained as to the Lord Lieutenancy. An aggregate meeting of its inhabitants was lately held on this question, at which not a single voice was raised against the office. It would be impossible to imagine the dissatisfaction and discontent, and he might say the disloyalty, which would arise if such a change were brought about. He should deeply regret bringing the sentiments and feelings of the Irish people into collision with the House or the Legislature at a time when it was known they were most loyal and contented.


said, he hoped the House would bear with him while he made a few observations in explanation of the vote which he should give that evening. He would briefly state the reasons why he thought it his duty to vote in favour of the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, but he wished first to congratulate the House on the conciliatory tone of the debate, with the exception of the severe and uncalled-for observations upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud, of which he hoped no notice would be taken by that right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the office of Lord Lieutenant, he would venture to say that it was useless. He knew it had been said that there were many important duties to be performed by the Lord Lieutenant, and the office, therefore, ought not to be abolished; but he could not understand why they could not be discharged with equal satisfaction by a Secretary of State. He hoped that if the Lord Lieutenancy were substituted by a Secretaryship of State no man would be selected to fill that office who was not only able, but thoroughly conversant with Irish affairs. However expedient it might have been to govern Ireland in times past through the medium of the Lord Lieutenancy, the means we possessed of rapid communication with. Ireland in these days rendered unnecessary that cumbrous and costly machinery. It was at present difficult to ascertain who was really responsible for the government of Ireland; but if a Secretary of State were appointed authoritative answers might be obtained in that House from an official intrusted exclusively with the administration of Irish affairs. He objected to the continuance of the Lord Lieutenancy because it was anti-national and (without meaning any offence to Irishmen) almost a badge of former servitude. As to the state of opinion in Ireland, they were not so certain that the real state of feeling was as the noble Lord the Chief Secretary seemed to think, for it appeared to him (Mr. Evans) that there was a growing feeling in favour of the office being abolished. Again, he objected to a continuance of the office on the ground of expense. The saving might be small, but it would be appreciable. He knew that questions of economy were not popular in the House of Commons, whatever they might be upon the hustings, but he conceived that it was the special duty of the House of Commons to effect a saving in the expenditure, if it could be properly done. He would not propose, nor would he approve of, any rash economy; and with regard to the expenses which were necessary for maintaining the army and navy in efficiency at home, and for insuring respect abroad, he would cheerfully agree to vote them. If, however, it could be shown that any item of expense was useless, and in particular pernicious, it was the duty of the House to do away with it. Another reason why he should give his support to the Motion was this, that be certainly desired to see England and Ireland—not merely in name, but in reality —a United Kingdom—and any measure which might tend to knit together the two peoples ought to meet with the approbation of all well-thinking men of both countries. The proposed change would bring this country and Ireland into closer contact with one another, and thus, perhaps, eventually lead to the result that, while Irishmen imbibed in some degree those business habits in which they were deficient, the people of England might acquire some of those brilliant qualities for which our fellow-subjects at the other side of the Channel were distinguished. He should, therefore—because he believed the office of Lord Lieutenant to be useless and, to a certain extent, anti-national, because also he was of opinion that its maintenance entailed an unnecessary, though, perhaps, a small expenditure upon the nation, and prevented that complete union which every one in that House must desire to see subsist between the two countries—vote in favour of the Motion of this hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield.


said, rising as he did at that late period of the debate, he trusted that he would receive the indulgence of the House, and for two reasons— in the first place, that when he did address the House, he never intruded upon them for any lengthened time; and next, that he stood before them, not merely as a resident of Dublin, but as the representative of a county far distant from that city, who were likewise opposed to the principle of centralization. He (Mr. O'Brien) did not agree in the opinions expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Fortescue), and by the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Vance), that Mr. Roebuck, being a private Member, was thereby disentitled from bringing forward his Motion, recollecting, as he did, that many of the greatest questions, whether of Reform or of Free Trade, had been successfully introduced and passed by independent Members. As an instance, he might mention the names of Mr. Villiers and Mr. Cobden—names ever identified with the Repeal of the Corn Laws. But what he would say was, that Mr. Roebuck must be indeed a daring and ardent man, if, with a Government arrayed against him, who had many allies from the Opposition, he could hope to effect what the noble Lord the Member for London could not effect, although backed by a majority of that House. He must also differ with his hon. Friend the Member for Carrickfergus (Mr. Dobbs) when he inferred that because the trade of Belfast and of Cork was increasing in a greater ratio than that of Dublin, that that circumstance must be attributed to the presence of the Viceroy. He (Mr. Dobbs) might have as logically inferred that because Liverpool and Newcastle had beaten Bristol in imports and exports, that Bristol must necessarily have been governed by a Lord Lieutenant. He agreed with his gallant Friend (Colonel French) that it was not by a vote upon the "previous question" that that Motion ought to have been met, but by a decided negative; an opposition such as was given to it that night, but continued uncertainty, and could serve no purpose but to continue an annual agitation, and enable many to make of this question a hustings cry. He would not descend to defend this institution upon any mere question of time, nor would he make an ad misericordiœ appeal upon behalf of Dublin shopkeepers to the charity of that House. But he would say that the abolition of the Viceroyalty was antagonistic to the wishes of the large mass of the Irish people, who, looking back upon old guarantees, and at the language used in 1799 by Mr. Pitt, by Lord Castlereagh, and by Lord Kilwarden, were alone entitled to pronounce upon this subject, and he, therefore, rested his opposition to the measure upon the fact that it was against the will of the people. The noble Lord the Chief Secretary (Lord Naas) had made a speech exciting in his breast conflicting emotions. He was delighted at the noble Lord's conversion, but regretted to find it was to last but for a time, and that this ancient institution might yet receive the dagger of the noble Lord. The popular will in this case was evidenced not alone by the votes of their representatives, but likewise by the fact that there was no demand for this measure, not a single petition being presented calling for this course of action. And here let him appeal to that section of the House forming the principal portion of those who followed Mr. Roebuck upon the question—he meant the English Radicals—and ask them were they consistent in the course which they were pursuing. Were this a discussion upon the affairs of Australia, of Canada, or of any other distant colony, they would at once exclaim that the people of these colonies knew their own business best, and that they would bow to the popular opinion within that colony; but yet, with strange inconsistency, they deny to Ireland that free action which they willingly extend to infinitely smaller communities. Again, do they not recollect the letter of George III. to Lord Sidmouth, then Mr. Addington, cited by the noble Lord the Member for London, in his speech in 1850, where that Sovereign, amongst other things, intimates that when the Lord Lieutenant should be removed, Ireland ought to be ruled by a military governor; and are they (the Radicals) prepared to say that, in the absence of the new Irish Secretary in London for more than half the year, attending his official and Parliamentary duties, Ireland should be handed over to the ignorance, both political and social, of some old general, whose life may have been passed either in Van Dieman's Land or in the plains of Hindostan? But; what case has been made for this change? In such a matter the onus must he upon the aggressor. The objections in reference to past transactions, in connection with former chief governors, cannot now apply. Of Lord Carlisle's popularity it would be unnecessary for him to speak; and, whatever may be the shortcomings of other members of the Irish Administration, all admired the candid and conciliatory bearing of Lord Eglinton. The people of Ireland, when they heard of notice of this Motion having been given, had a right to ask "the reason why;" and he (Mr. O'Brien) could supply them with an answer—Centralization. That system which, joined with absenteeism, of which it is the handmaiden, had taken so much capital from the shores of Ireland, and destroyed so many of her institutions; had removed the Board of Excise, had niched away her customs, Crown and quit rents, towards embellishing London parks and making London bridges; and if this Motion were successful (which he knew it would not be), would end by making of the Castle a barrack, and of Phoenix Lodge an hospital. He trusted the House would respect the feelings—call them prejudices if they would—of the Irish people.


said, he did not intend to delay the House in coming to that decision, which he thought ought to have been arrived at long before in reference to this question. He had heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon (Colonel French), and that of his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland (Lord Naas), and he confessed that, at the conclusion of those speeches, he looked upon the question as disposed of. He could not, therefore, but express his regret that one night of the important time of that House should have been occupied by a discussion which appeared to him so utterly unsatisfactory and so entirely uncalled for. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was characterized by great ability and extreme conciseness. He began by endeavouring to enlist the good opinion of the Irish Members, and the confidence of the House, by reminding them that he had invariably joined the late Mr. O'Connell in all his attempts to bring about peace and good government in Ireland. As an Englishman, it struck him (Mr. Bentinck) that that was a somewhat singular mode of obtaining the confidence of the House in the hon. and learned Member's ability to deal with Irish questions. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to him to treat the question on two grounds. The first was that of expense, and he endeavoured to show the large saving which could be effected by the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant; but it had been shown that evening that, so far from a saving being effected, additional expense would be incurred; therefore it was obvious that he (Mr. Roebuck) bad not gone deeply into that point. The point, however, on which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke with the greatest anxiety was that of the formation and misconduct of the household of the Lord Lieutenant. He called that household "upstarts," and "menial upstarts." [Mr. ROEBUCK: NO, not "menial."] Well, if the hon. and learned Member had not used that particular adjective, he had certainly used one equally expressive. He (Mr. Roebuck) stated that those Gentlemen had under their control the hospitality and festivity of the Viceregal Court, and admitted no one who could not either dance, or sing, or play. That certainly was hardly a fit subject for the consideration of an Imperial Parliament; but the extreme eagerness which the hon. and learned Gentleman had displayed, to hold them up to the disapprobation of the House, almost disposed him (Mr. Bentinck) to think that, some time or other, he had received some slight at the hands of those gentlemen. Whether the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted any of those qualifications which alone found favour in their eyes, he (Mr. Bentinck) could not say; but certainly he seemed as if he considered himself aggrieved by them. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Irish counties were now more easily governed than formerly, in consequence of the improvements in science and the increased facilities for communication between the Metropolis and those counties; but he (Mr. Bentinck) should rather ascribe the improvement to the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his political friends were no longer able to assist in tranquillizing Ireland. He believed, certainty, that it was not so easy to govern Ireland some years ago, when the hon. and learned Member was endeavouring to assist Mr. O'Connell to tranquillize Ireland. He (Mr. Bentinck) believed that discussions of this kind should be discouraged. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield could not govern Ireland himself; both sides of the House would agree in that; and it really was a serious question for what purpose such discussions were brought forward, except it was to waste the time of the House.


said, that the question appeared to him to be one of serious interest, amounting to no less than a discussion as to the best mode of governing Ireland—a subject which appealed alike to the feelings of every Irishman, and he felt quite sure to the attention of every Member of that House. Now, it was, in his opinion, impossible to establish a parallel between England and Ireland, for, however intimate the intercourse between the people of the two countries, they always remained essentially distinct in religion and in feelings. The races of the countries had not amalgamated. The Celtic and the Anglo-Saxon races had not mingled. The Anglo-Saxon had no doubt become Celtic in his feelings, but the races remained apart, and he was afraid there was little prospect of their speedy amalgamation. What was the state of government in Ireland? In point of fact, Ireland was governed by a body of 12,000 police, who were under a central authority in Dublin. There was nothing like this in England. Then there were stipendiary magistrates, whose appointment had conferred great benefit on Ireland, but who would not suit English institutions. It was impossible to amalgamate the two Governments, and Parliamentary legislation showed this by the frequency with which Ireland was specially excluded from the operation of important statutes. Thus it had not been thought fit to extend the Divorce Bill to Ireland on account of its being distasteful to the Roman Catholics. He thought the more this question was raised the more it would embitter the feelings of the Irish people, and he should therefore oppose the Motion.


Sir, it would seem from the course that the debate has taken, that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, stands charged with something like presumption in bringing forward this question of the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland; but I own it appears to me that if the hon. Member has a strong opinion upon that subject he is only performing his duty when he bring3 it before the House. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced the question, and no one had participated in his opinion, and there was no chance of success attending it hereafter, a discussion of the subject would have been no doubt an idle waste of the time of the House; but I think that every step which has been taken in the debate to-night shows that the question is worthy of being considered, and not only that, but that the Motion is one which is likely ere long to succeed. It appears to me that when hon. Members lay down as an abstract proposition that there must be a separate administration for Ireland, they altogether lose sight of the fact that circumstances change, and that with the change of circumstances a very different policy may be adopted. I cannot deny that at the time of the Union the circumstances fo Ireland were peculiar, and that those circumstances rendered it necessary to have an Executive Government in that country; but it appears that those circumstances are now so much changed that it is a matter at all events worthy of consideration, whether it would not be better for Ireland herself that a separate Executive should no longer exist. I remember when this question was debated many years ago, that Sir Robert Peel gave it as a conclusive reason against the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy that it was necessary to have a Lord Lieutenant in order to consider the applications for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in cases of capital convictions that came before him, and that too much time would he consumed in emergencies of that kind if those applications had to be referred to England. But we know that, owing to the inventions of later times, the journey between the two countries is now made so much more rapidly that there could be no difficulty, if there were a Secretary of State for Ireland resident in London, in his giving a speedy opinion upon a question of that kind, and that there could be no such loss of time as was then supposed to be involved. In itself, I imagine there can be no doubt that it would be better to have one Administration for the whole of the United Kingdom. I know, at least, that it was the opinion of one of the wisest statesmen of this country, Lord Somers, when the Union with Scotland took place, although the Privy Council of that country was a time-honoured body, and had all the recommendations which have to-night been given to the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, that the Union could not be complete unless there was one administration; and he added, "Wishing to have the Union complete, I am not, therefore, in favour of continuing the Privy Council." So, it appears to me, unless you have some reason, such as the distance of the West Indies or of Canada, you ought not to have a separate administration for an integral part of the United Kingdom. On the other hand there is a difficulty, and no doubt a considerable difficulty, in saying what should be put in the place of the Lord Lieutenant. When I introduced a Bill, some seven or eight years ago, it was carried by a great majority on the second reading in this House. I proposed that there should be a Secretary of State for Ireland, but many hon. Gentlemen felt an objection to that proposal, as they thought it was keeping up a separate administration, although it was not to be in a different place; and I think there is great force in the objection which has been made tonight by my right hon. Friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, that is not now the question, and there are other ways in which the difficulty might be solved. For instance, in the Home Office, there are many functions attached to that Department which do not properly belong to it, but which have been added to it of late years, and which might be conveniently separated from that office; so, if it could be done, I think it would be much better that there should be one Secretary of State, who should administer affairs for England, Scotland, and Ireland, than that you should have two Secretaries of State for that purpose. But that again might require the erection of a separate Department, or the increase of the Department of the Board of Trade, the Board of Health, and other Departments in which those functions may be properly exercised, and that would be a matter for the Executive Government to consider. This brings me, of course, to the question, what vote I shall give to-night. If I had found that the Government were altogether prepared to oppose a proposition of the sort—if I had found that the noble Lord the Chief Secretary had said that this office was one which must be perpetually maintained, and that the administration of Government in Ireland could not be carried on without it—I should, I own, at any risk, be disposed to support the proposition of my hon. and learned Friend. The noble Lord said nothing of the kind. He told us of the advantages there were in personally communicating with the Government on the spot; but let me suggest to the Chief Secretary, with regard to the business carried on by the Lord Lieutenant, that, although there is that personal communication with him in Dublin, there is a great disadvantage in the want of personal communication here; for instance, there is a question on which the aid of the Exchequer in England is required. Representations are made by deputations from parties concerned in that local question to the Lord Lieutenant. He receives them favourably. He is always disposed to favour the interests of Ireland; but he transmits his representations here in writing. He is not able to give all the reasons so well as the Irish gentlemen would have given them in a conversation had they come over here, and although those gentlemen had the satisfaction of receiving a most favourable answer from him, and were most delighted at their reception, they find, when the matter is considered here by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Home Secretary, that they take quite a different view, and that the proposition which they thought accepted is totally refused. Now, I believe that if there were no local authority or Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, and if those gentlemen who had an object to gain which was really a public object, and in which the interests of the public were involved, came to London and laid their representations directly before some De- partment of the Government, they would have a much better chance of success. But this question, and the mode in which the difficulties are to be solved, is a matter entirely for the Executive Government, and as the present Government are not disinclined to consider the question, I am certainly disposed to leave it in their hands, and support the previous question. The noble Lord the Chief Secretary tells us he thinks there is a change of opinion in Ireland upon this subject, and that he believes those persons who were formerly indisposed to change are disposed to it now; and he seems to think that the time is not far distant when hon. Members for Ireland generally will be inclined to look on this change with favour. I think there would be great disadvantage in coming to a vote in this House which might be considered by the representatives for Ireland as intended in any way to hurt their feelings and go against their wishes. For my own part, I would rather see the question fairly and calmly discussed, and put again to the representatives for Ireland to consider it; and I think that, in that way, if the Government, on their part, will endeavour to discover a practical mode of dealing with the question, we may arrive in no very long period at a solution more satisfactory to all parties than a vote of this House, carried on the proposition of an individual Member, against the wishes of the present Government, and, as I collect from my right hon. Friend, against the wishes of the late Government also. In the meantime, I am perfectly satisfied there is no great evil in leaving the government of Ireland in the hands of the present Lord Lieutenant, who appears to me disposed to rule in a spirit of enlightened justice.


I would not trouble the House with any observations on this subject did I not think it would be unadvisable that either the House or the country should be carried away with the notion, which some expressions which fell from the noble Lord the Member for London might seem to favour, that the present Government see their way to any proposal for making the change suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. I agree in every word that fell from my noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland; I think the view of the case he took was so temperate, so fair, and so reasonable, that it was the proper course for the Government to take. I think that, at this time, having reference to the specific proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, and considering the extreme difficulties with which the subject is surrounded, especially in finding a proper substitute for that which we are asked to abolish, it is the wise and right course for the Government to vote for the previous question rather than to meet the Motion with a direct negative. The noble Lord the Member for the city of London most properly said that this is a question which the Executive Administration should deal with; and, in order to determine what ought to be done with the present Government, you must, in the first instance, endeavour to sec whether the substitute you intend to provide will or will not do more than counterbalance the inconveniences which the existing system is supposed to possess; for, even supposing all the faults which are alleged against the present system to exist, though I think these have been greatly exaggerated, that is no reason why it should be done away with unless the substitute you provide for it be such as will do more than counterbalance those evils. Now, I am anxious that the House should clearly understand our position with reference to this matter. I believe that the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland is infinitely better than the specific proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, and I think it is infinitely preferable in three points of view. In the first place, it is so on account of the local knowledge which is brought to bear on the minds of the Executive with reference to the local affairs of Ireland. In that respect, the existence of the office of Lord Lieutenant is infinitely superior to the establishment of any office which has not the same facilities for access and intercourse, and the same means of attending readily to complaints that may be urged on the part of those resident in Ireland, or the same power of determining on the spot, and at the moment, matters of great importance, that must, on the spot, and at the moment, be attended to. In the second place, it is not merely the local knowledge that is an immense advantage in the present system, but the fact that that local knowledge is possessed by a person who, by his position, is greatly above all partialities, and yet is still a local authority. This is an advantage possessed by the Lord Lieutenant greatly superior to any that you could derive from a Secretary of State resident in this country. The advantages of a local authority resident in Ireland were strongly illustrated by my noble Friend the Chief Secretary when he pointed out the duties which the Lord Lieutenant has to discharge. I read those duties only yesterday, as contained in the appointment of the Lord Lieutenant, and in the instructions which accompany that appointment. Anybody who looks at those duties will find that, as the conservator of the peace, he is bound to hold constant communication with 600 petty sessions, with seventy-one stipendiary magistrates, with a vast number of assistant barristers, and with the Judges of the land on the subject of criminal jurisprudence; regulating all these matters, hearing complaints that are made with reference to them, and holding, in short, just as the Secretary of State does in England, a superintending power over the whole administration of justice in Ireland. But, in addition to these, he has great duties to discharge, as representing the Crown upon the spot. He is at the head of, and exercises a controlling power over, the army in Ireland; he is the temporal head of the ecclesiastical establishment in that country. To use the language of the appointment and instructions, "all the duties and all the powers and functions which are vested in the Crown," and may he exercised by the Queen herself, are vested in the Lord Lieutenant, with the one exception of pardoning treason when the life of the Sovereign has been attacked. With all those duties thrown upon the Lord Lieutenant, it has struck my mind most forcibly that no appointment of any Secretary of State can adequately supply the local authority with reference to them which you must have in Dublin, to be exercised there by a power superior to every other power, and containing within itself all the means of exercising that power. If you have the Secretary of State for Ireland here in England, you know that during the whole of the Session of Parliament he must be away from his proper place, leaving the whole of those matters to which I have referred to be dealt with by a subordinate officer; or, if they are not intrusted to a subordinate officer, then the duties that ought to attach to the office will be neglected, and to that extent the welfare and prosperity of Ireland will suffer. In the third place, I think, not merely that the local knowledge which the Lord Lieutenant possesses, and the local authority which he exercises, but also the power he has of attending to the local interests and wants of the people, is far greater than any that you could place in any other hands. The question before the House is a specific proposition that a Secretary of State should be appointed for Ireland. Now, the noble Lord the Member for London knows that when he made that proposition in 1850 he carried it by a large majority on the second reading. I had the honour of voting in that majority. [Lord J. RUSSELL: Hear!] I voted in that majority for this plain and obvious reason, that I thought it very justifiable, supposing you found an adequate substitute, to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant; but that is a question which depends on the wishes of the people of Ireland, and also on the efficiency of the substitute you intend to provide. Now, the more that question was discussed in 1850 the more strongly it came out that there were many inconveniences in appointing a Secretary of State, and I believe the noble Lord himself at last saw that a substitute was not to be easily found. In the course of that debate Sir Robert Peel reminded the House of the principles which had been established in Ireland with reference to the Irish Exchequer. You had found the benefit of consolidating the two Exchequers into one, and he argued powerfully and satisfactorily that the same reasoning which made it advisable to consolidate the two Exchequers into one made it equally desirable that you should consolidate under one controlling head the administration of all the affairs of the Executive Government. If you have two Secretaries of State, whose duty it is to superintend the whole affairs of the empire, you will weaken instead of strengthen their functions. If, again, you have a Secretary of State for Ireland, and another to whom all the other home affairs of the country are intrusted, you will find that in regard to legislation, they might be proceeding on different tacks. Unless you have one Secretary of State to superintend the whole domestic affairs of the kingdom, both as to the administration of justice and the legislation to be recommended, this will happen,—either that matters of legislation will be neglected because disagreements may ensue, or you will have two kinds of legislation at the same time—the one applicable to Ireland, and the other to England, when you ought rather to assimilate the law between the two countries. It has, therefore, always struck me forcibly that another Secretary of State for Ireland would embarrass rather than strengthen and improve the functions of the Executive in that country. In addition to that, you must remember that the Secretary of State for Ireland must be for a great part of his time resident in this country. Being thus resident in this country, unless you can get some one to represent him in Ireland of equal authority, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to provide for cases of emergency that might occur. I do not say this to discourage any improvement in the administration of affairs in Ireland; hut since there are great advantages in the local knowledge, the local authority, and the attention to local interests which you obtain through the Lord Lieutenant, and since, by the constant communication between the Lord Lieutenant and the Home Secretary, you have one pervading mind regulating the affairs of Ireland, you had better not part with those advantages until you have ascertained upon something like probable, if not certain, grounds, that you can provide a substitute under whom they may be preserved. These are the reasons that make me hesitate to assert that the present or any Government sitting on these benches can say at this moment, or indeed at any specific time, until these difficulties are maturely weighed, and got over, that we ought to abolish an office which has hitherto in many respects answered admirably, and which ought only to be replaced by such a substitute as will retain these advantages, and superadd others which the present system does not possess. After all, the question before the House is, whether you will have local power in Dublin or central power in London. That question will lead to the further consideration whether you can provide a substitute which will enable you to govern Ireland as wisely and temperately as you are enabled to do by means of that local information which the governing authority now possesses, which enables you to exercise that authority promptly and with vigour, which secures an administration of affairs through the kingdom which renders them uniform throughout, which insures the best moans of becoming acquainted with the wants of the people, and gets rid of the difficulties that would arise from a system of conflicting and yet co-ordinate authority.


I will only trouble the House for a few minutes, but I wish to state very shortly the reasons why I shall vote for the Motion of the previous question. I think that any one who has attempted to give his mind to the principle of administrative improvement might, in the first place, be led to think that it would be advantageous to abolish this office and make another arrangement for administering the affairs of Ireland. When, how- ever, such a person should have looked a little deeper into the local circumstances and had reflected upon the national feelings concerned, he might be led to think the question more difficult than at first sight it had appeared to be. The arrangement proposed, as far as regards the distribution of administrative functions, is simple and practicable. I at one time thought that it might be advantageous if the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland were abolished, and if an office of Secretary of State for Ireland were substituted. Further reflection has, however, satisfied me that this would not be a necessary or advantageous arrangement. I am convinced that the Home Office by a better distribution of its functions, and by transferring some of them to other departments, might perfectly well transact the Irish business, with the addition, perhaps, of another Under Secretary of State. So that, as far as the organization of the administration is concerned, I see no insurmountable difficulty in the way of the proposed arrangement. There are also many things belonging to the present time that diminish the difficulty which former years opposed to such an arrangement. I remember being in Dublin when the sailing packet afforded the only means of communication between the two countries, and I recollect being told that for six days no English mail had arrived. Now, by means of electric communication, six minutes suffice where formerly six days were not sufficient. Therefore, the improvements of modern times give facilities of communication both for persons and information which render the change proposed more easy than at any former period. However, there are other circumstances which lead one to pause. The case of Scotland has been brought forward as an analogous case. It has been urged that as it is not necessary for Scotland to have a separate Executive, it is not therefore necessary for Ireland. But we ought to remember the great internal differences that exist between Scotland and Ireland. In Scotland the people have some small differences of ecclesiastical discipline, but they are for the most part united upon all questions of religious doctrine. Ireland presents a different picture, and the religious differences which prevail there must give rise to many questions and embitter those questions to a greater degree than in any other part of the United Kingdom. There is no doubt an advantage in having a local authority to settle those questions when they arise, without trouble and inconvenience, and there is a great advantage in their being settled by the high authority like the Lord Lieutenant, who does not usually belong to the country, who is not engaged with the parties peculiar to the country, but who comes with impartiality to judge between the two, instead of being settled by an officer of inferior authority belonging to Ireland, who would be necessarily engaged on one side or the other. Then I say that there are some circumstances which counterbalance the advantage of that unity of administration which is of great benefit in itself for the general interests of the country. But, after all, I am of opinion that the decision of this question ought to be governed by the feelings of the people of Ireland. If the people of Ireland agreed with some of those who have spoken this evening in the opinion that the continuation of this image of Royalty, instead of being an honour to the country, is really a barrier interposed between them and the real Sovereign—if the people of Ireland thought that local circumstances rendered it desirable that this office should be abolished, I should be prepared to vote for abolishing it, and for substituting some other arrangement. But if, on the other hand, as I am rather led to suppose, the opinion and temper of the Irish people induce them to cling to this mode of government rather than wish to abolish it, I think that no consideration for the more saving that might be effected—no consideration of the advantages, undeniable, though they may be, of unity of administration, should counterbalance the wishes of the people of Ireland. I think that Parliament ought to defer to those wishes, and if the people of Ireland are in favour of retaining the office of Lord Lieutenant, I think the office ought to be preserved.


said, he had been accused of great presumption in that he, an independent and humble Member, had dared to bring this question before the House, and it had been said that it was a singular mark of his audacity that he had done so. But did the House remember the authority that he had in support of his Motion? First and foremost he could quote the authority of the noble Lord now sitting at his right hand (Lord J. Russell), who in 1850 introduced a Bill expressly abolishing the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and appointing a fourth Secretary of State. Who voted for that Bill? It was supported by the late Sir Robert Peel, by the present Home Secretary, by the noble Lord now Secretary for Ireland, by the whole of the present front Opposition bench, and by a great number of Irish Members. Yet after this, hon. Gentlemen turned round on him and said that he was opposing himself to the feelings of the people of Ireland. How was he to judge? In 1850 a great majority of the Members for Ireland voted for this very measure. They had undergone a famine. They had suffered from the want of a good Government in Ireland, and under the pressure of these circumstances the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) brought in his Bill. There was a parallel case which struck him as singularly suggestive. India was now suffering under a double Government. That was what Ireland was suffering under in 1850, and just as the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) rushed with his Bill to remedy the error in the Government of Ireland did the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) rush with his Bill to remedy the evils of the Government of India. Some seven or eight years had passed over since the famine in Ireland, and if seven or eight years passed favourably for India, the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) would, like the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) vote for the previous question with regard to a measure for a change in the government of India. He asked the noble Lord at his right hand (Lord J. Russell) had anything else happened to change his opinion? He was not in 1850 a man unversed in politics. He was not in 1850 a new Member, and at that time it might be supposed he had arrived at years of discretion. When the noble Lord brought in his Bill, no doubt he thought he was bringing in a measure to remedy the evils in the Government of Ireland. He had had long experience of Ireland. The late Sir Robert Peel had had experience too, and both of them concurred in voting for the Bill to abolish the Lord Lieutenancy. And yet he was now charged with audacity in following the steps of the noble Lord. He had no doubt there was some truth in the imputation. But there was another consideration. The "previous question" had been moved. He was the victim of "previous questions." Last year he brought forward the plain and simple proposition to abolish the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. He was then met with the hue-and-cry that he proposed no substitute. The hon. Member for Yarmouth moved "the previous question," and the whole of the Ministerial bench went out with him. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) he believed, gave authority to a gentleman to quote his opinion strongly in favour of the Motion. Upon that occasion the Attorney General (Mr. Whiteside) was wonderfully eloquent, as he always was, and never was heard more capital abuse of an office than that of the Lord Lieutenant. But the right hon. Gentleman saved himself by saying, "My learned Friend is quite right, but he has proposed nothing in its place, and I shall vote for the previous question." he had now proposed something in its place, and the right hon. Gentleman would still vote for the previous question. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Walpole) and also the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir G. C. Lewis) objected to the multiplication of Secretaries of State. "Four," said the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Lewis) "is a very good number, but five is a very bad number." If five were a bad number, how came the Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished Member, to propose a fifth Secretary of State for the government of India? The Secretary of State for the Home Department talked of the Lord Lieutenant as very much better than a, Secretary of State, because he was a local authority. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, could the Lord Lieutenant do anything in Ireland? Was he not obliged to have recourse to the Home Government, and were not the cool and cautious answers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House Secretary continually overturning the expectations raised by the civil and courteous replies which had previously been given to deputations by the Lord Lieutenant? The fact was, that the Lord Lieutenant was an idle pageant, and the very thing which he said at the commencement came at the close; they had three men governing Ireland—the Home Secretary, the Lord Lieutenant, and the Lord Lieutenant's Chief Secretary. Then, he wanted to know why they refused on this occasion to vote for that of which they all in their hearts approved? Because it was inconvenient to the present Government, as it was to every other Government to do so. He was told by the noble Lord who was Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Lord Naas), "Wait a little; time will bring about results; and you will find that more and more of the people of Ireland will be with you, and you will be able to carry your measure." He had never listened to a speech with greater pleasure than he had listened to the speech to-night of the noble Lord—clear, calm, finished, and perspicuous; nothing could be bettor, but he recollected other speeches delivered by the noble Lord when in a different frame of mind, and with the noble Lord's permission he would refresh his memory. This was spoken upon the second reading of the Bill in 1850, and he quoted from Hansard, vol. cxi., p. 1438. These were the noble Lord's words: — Looking back, as he did, upon the history of Ireland, he believed that that history was but one continued scene of misgovernment. He looked upon the office of Lord Lieutenant as the chief feature of that system, and now that it was proposed to abolish that office, he could but rejoice at the change. At page 1439 he found these other words: As an Irishman, he could not view with any feeling of alarm a measure which might have the effect of drawing closer the bonds of union between England and Ireland. If Irish influence were really to be felt, if Irish interests were really to become powerful, it was not by provincial but by Imperial influence that those ends were to be obtained. As members of the Imperial senate Irishmen could far better minister to the welfare of Ireland than by backstairs intrigue in the Castle of Dublin. The noble Lord had given an elaborate description of the Lord Lieutenant's beneficial influence. It might be said that second thoughts were best. But second thoughts were not always best. Second thoughts might come under very peculiar circumstances, and he rather thought the noble Lord owed his recent inspiration to the peculiar circumstances in which he was now placed. He thought that he had brought forward this Motion in a spirit and temper which could excite no feeling against him. But the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) assailed him in a mode which he did not deserve. There was such a thing as a bucolic state of mind, and he would leave the hon. Gentleman with the remark, that argument to some minds was like throwing seeds upon a. rock. he had done his duty in bringing forward the Motion. He believed that he was following great authorities, though, in fact, it would appear that he had more faith in those authorities than the authorities themselves. He hoped that the next time it was brought forward it would be supported more efficiently, and any failure now he should refer to himself and not to his subject. It was his fault that the question failed to-night, as he could not believe that the noble Lord and those who followed him upon that occasion were so thoroughly without reason and experience that they did in 1850 what they were ashamed of in 1858. He begged to state that he intended to cut off the second part of his Motion if the previous question should be negatived, and he therefore hoped hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to another Secretary of State would not vote for the previous question under the impression that the Motion would stand without alteration.

Whereupon previous Question put, "That that Question be now put."

The House divided; Ayes 116; Noes 243; Majority 127.

List of the AYES.
Agnew, Sir A. Kinglake, A. W.
Ayrton, A. S. Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T. Langston, J. H.
Barnard, T. Lindsay, W. S.
Beaumont, W, B. Locke, John
Black, A. Lowe, rt. hon. R.
Brocklehurst, J. Mackinnon, W. A.
Brown, Lord J. T. Mangles, R. D.
Bruce, H. A. Massey, W. N.
Buchanan, W. Mellor, J.
Buckley, Gen. Moffatt, G.
Butler, C. S. Morris, D.
Byng, hon. G. Napier, Sir C.
Caird, J. Nicoll, D.
Cheetham, J. North, F.
Clay, J. Ogilvy, Sir J.
Clifford C. C. Paget, C.
Clifford, Col. Paget, Lord C.
Clive, G. Paxton, Sir J.
Colvile, C. R. Pease, H.
Cowan, C. Pechell, Sir G. B.
Cox, W. Pilkington, J.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Price, W. P.
Crawford, R. W. Proby, hon. G. L.
Crook, J. Ramsden, Sir J. W.
Crossley, F. Rawlinson, Sir H. C.
Dalglish, R. Raynham, Visct.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Rebow, J. G.
Dent, J. D. Ricardo, O.
Dillwyn, L. L. Ridley, G.
Dodson, J. G. Robartes, T. J. A.
Duff, M. E. G. Russell, H.
Dunbar, Sir W. Russell, A.
Duncombe, hon. Col. Scholefield, W.
Dunlop, A. M. Shelley, Sir J. V.
Ebrington, Visct. Smith, J. A.
Ellice, E. Smith, J. B.
Evans, T. W. Smith, A.
Ewart, W. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Ewing, H. E. C. Stapleton, J.
Ferguson, Sir R. Stirling, W.
Finlay, A. S. Sykes, Col. W. H.
Foley, J. H. Talbot, C. R. M.
Foley, H. J. W. Thompson, Gen.
Forster, C. Thornely T.
Gilpin, C. Tite, W.
Glyn, G. G. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Goderich, Visct. Trelawny, Sir J. S.
Grey, R. W. Vivian, hon. J. C. W.
Griffith, C. D. Western, S.
Hall, rt. hon. Sir B. Westhead, J. P. B.
Hamilton, Capt. Whitbread, S.
Hanmer, Sir J. Williams, W.
Hardcastle, J. A. Wise, J. A.
Horsman, rt. hon. E. Woods, H.
Hutt, W. Wortley, Major S.
Jackson, W.
Kershaw, J. TELLERS.
King, hon. P. J. L. Roebuck, J. A.
King, E. B. Baxter, W. E.
List of the NOES.
Adams, W. H. Franklyn, G. W.
Adderley, rt. hon. C. B. Freestun, Col.
Alexander, J. French, Col.
Antrobus, E. Gard, R. S.
Bagshaw, R, J. Garnett, W. J.
Bagwell, J. Gavin, Major
Bailey, C. Gilpin, C.
Baillie, H. J. Gladstone, rt. hon. W.
Ball, E. Greaves, E.
Baring, A. H. Greenall, G.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.T. Gregory, W. H.
Bass, M. T. Gregson, S.
Bathurst, A. A. Grenfell, C. P. W.
Beach, W. W. B. Greville, Col. F.
Beecroft, G. S. Gray, Capt.
Bennet, P. Grosvenor, Earl
Bentinck, G. W. F. Gurdon, B.
Biddulph, R. M. Hamilton, Lord C.
Blackburn, P. Hamilton, G. A.
Blakemore, T. W. B. Hamilton, J. H.
Botfield, B. Hankey, T.
Bouverie, hon. P. P. Hardy, G.
Bovill, W. Hassard, M.
Bowyer, G. Hatchell, J.
Bramston, T. W. Hayes, Sir E.
Brand, hon. H. Hayter, rt. hon. Sir W. G.
Bridges, Sir B. W. Heard, J. I.
Briscoe, J. I. Heathcote, hon. G. H.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Henley, rt. hon. J. W.
Bunbury, W. B. M'C. Hill, Lord E.
Burghley, Lord Hodgson, W. N.
Butt, I. Holford, R. S.
Buxton, C. Hope, A. J. B.
Buxton, Sir E. N. Hopwood, J. T.
Calcraft, J. H. Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Campbell, R. J. R. Hume, W. W. F.
Carnac, Sir J. R. Hunt, G. W.
Cartwright, H. Ingestre, Visct.
Cecil, Lord R. Inglis, J.
Christy, S. Johnstone, hon. H. B.
Clark, J. J. Johnstone, J. J. H.
Cogan, W. H. F. Johnstone, Sir J.
Cole, hon. H. A. Joliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Conyngham, Lord F. Jolliffe, H. H.
Conolly, T. Kendall, N.
Coote, Sir C. H. King, J. K.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L. Kirk, W.
Damer, L. D. Knatchbull, W. F.
Deedes, W. Knatchbull-Hugessen E.
De Vere, S. E. Knight, F. W.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B. Knox, Col.
Dobbs, W. C. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Du Cane, C. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Dundas, G. Leslie, C. P.
Dundas, F. Levinge, Sir R.
Dunkellin, Lord Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.
Dutton, hon. R. H. Liddell, hon. H. G.
Edwards, H. Lincoln, Earl of
Egerton, Sir P. G. Lovaine, Lord
Egerton, W. T. Lowther, hon. Col.
Egerton, E. C. Luce, T.
Elphinstone, Sir J. Lyall, G.
Emlyn, Visct. Lygon, hon. F.
Esmonde, J. Lytton, Sir G. E. L.B.
Estcourt, rt. hn. T. H. S. Macarthy, A.
Farquhar, Sir M. Macartney, G.
Fellowes, E. Macaulay, K.
FitzGerald, W. R. S. Mackie, J.
FitzGerald, rt. hon. J. D. Maguire, J. F.
FitzRoy, rt. hon. H. Mainwaring, T.
Forde, Col. Mangles, C. E.
Forester, rt. hon. Col. Manners, Lord J.
Fortescue, C. S. March, Earl of
Marsh, M. H. Stanhope, J. B.
Matheson, A. Steel, J.
Matheson, Sir J. Stephenson, R.
Maxwell, hon. Col. Steuart, A.
Miles, W. Stewart, Sir M. R. S.
Miller, T. J. Stuart, Lord J.
Mills, A. Stuart, Col.
Monsell, rt. hon. W. Sturt, C. N.
Montgomery, Sir G. Sullivan, M.
Mowbray, J. R. Taylor, Col.
Naas, Lord Tempest, Lord A. V.
Newport, Visct. Tollemache, J.
Noel, hon. G. J. Tottenham, C.
Norreys, Sir J. D. Townsend, J.
Norris, J. T. Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.
North, Col. Trueman, C.
O'Brien, P. Turner, J. A.
O'Connell, Capt. D. Vance, J.
O'Donoghoe, The Vansittart, G. H.
Packe, C. W. Vansittart, W.
Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J. Verner, Sir W.
Palmer, R. Waddington, H. S.
Palmerston, Visct. Walcott, Adm.
Patten, Col. W. Waldron, L.
Paull, H. Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Peel, Sir R. Walsh, Sir J.
Peel, rt. hon. Gen. Warren, S.
Pevensey, Visct. Whatman, J.
Philipps, J. H. Whiteside, rt. hon. J.
Pinney, Col. Whitmore, H.
Potter, Sir J. Wickham, H. W.
Pryse, E. L. Wigram, L. T.
Pritchard, J. Williams, Sir W. F.
Puller, C. W. Willoughby, Sir H.
Ramsay, Sir A. Wilson, A.
Robertson, P. F. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Rolt, J. Woodd, B. T.
Rushout, G. Worsley, Lord
Russell, Lord J. Wyld, J.
Russell, F. W. Wyndham, Gen.
Rust, J. Wyndham, H.
Sandon; Visct. Wynn, Col.
Schneider, H. W. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Sclater-Booth, G. Wynne, W. W. E.
Scott, hon. F. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Scott, Major Young, A. W.
Sibthorp, Major
Smith, Sir F. TELLERS.
Somerset, Col. Miller, S. B.
Spooner, R. Grogan, E.