§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY moved for an address for a return in chronological order of all Ministers of the Crown appointed since the Act of Union of 1800, with the dates of their respective acceptances of, and retirements from, office, distinguishing Cabinet Ministers from those not of the Cabinet. And a similar return of all persons appointed to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Chief Secretary for Ireland, and Lord Chancellor of Ireland, during the like period. He had been asked by several persons his object in moving for this return. It would certainly be a useful historical record, but that was not the purpose for which he moved its production. It would be valuable in enabling the public to ascertain of what elements Cabinets had been constructed for the last sixty years, and to what extent the purely aristocratic had predominated. From it would he found how very few Ministers of the Crown there had been who had not belonged to the aristocracy; how few Peels or Cannings, Gladstones or Disraelis, and, still more how few Cobdens or Brights. These, however, were not the objects he bad in view. One of his objects was to ascertain how many Irishmen had been admitted into the Cabinet since the Act of Union. When the return was in their hands he believed it would be found that an Irish Cabinet Minister was like the black 75 swan, angelically scarce; in the present Cabinet there was not one genuine Irishman, though there was a titular Irishman. There might have been about half a dozen Irishmen in the Cabinet since the Union, including the Duke of Wellington, Lord Castlereagh, Lord Monteagle, and two or three others. Latterly, however, Irishmen had been excluded altogether. Another object he had in view was to ascertain bow many Catholics had been admitted into the Cabinet since the passing of the Emancipation Act. The other night the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) appeared to be alarmed lest a Roman Catholic should be allowed to hold the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He assured the hon. Gentleman that his apprehensions would prove groundless. He (Mr. Scully) believed that for thirty years past there had not been a Roman Catholic Cabinet Minister. The two ideas seemed "wide as the poles asunder." Mr. More O'Ferrall was a Catholic; so also was Mr. Sheil; but, though both of them were Members of the Government of the day, they were not in the Cabinet. Mr. Sheil was admitted as an outsider; but he supposed that Mr. Sheil was considered to be a man of inferior character and ability, for he was not admitted into the Cabinet. Should opposition be offered to his Motion, he could quote precedents in support of it. For instance, during many years no Irishman was allowed to occupy a scat on the judicial bench in India. A return proving that fact was asked for and obtained; and the result had been that one Irishman— namely, Sir Matthew Sausse, a very distinguished man, had been raised to the judicial bench in Bombay. That was a circumstance not forgotten in Ireland, He might be mistaken, but he considered this was the most important Motion that could he brought forward in connection with Ireland because so long as Irishmen were excluded from the Cabinet, it was impossible that measures of a satisfactory character could be brought forward for that country, by Members of a Cabinet not identified with Ireland. How could they expect that Ireland would be properly legislated for when she was not represented at all in Imperial Councils. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes; by the Chief Secretary for Ireland!] The Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Cardwell) was an estimable man, but he know less about Ireland than he (Mr. Scully) knew about England, and he was not so fit for his office as he (Mr. Scully) was for the 76 office of Home Secretary. He had another precedent for his Motion in one made some years since by the present Attorney General for Ireland, for a return of the number of persons in each class of the Irish constabulary force, distinguishing how many were Roman Catholics together with the number of Roman Catholics appointed to the force, and promoted. The Irish people— the Irish Members—the Irish peers, were of greater importance than the Irish constabulary—and he considered it was right the people of Ireland should obtain the information he asked for. During the late elections he read several of the addresses put forth in Ireland, and he found in them the statement that all the great sections of the Liberal party were represented in the present Government; but he denied it, because the Irish section of the Liberal party had been overlooked. He did not pretend to know anything about the mode in which Governments were made up, but let any Member fancy himself to be Prime Minister, and then he would have some idea how he would set about it. He could imagine how the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) at the head of the Government would set about forming his Cabinet. He believed he was, in point of sagacity, six months in advance of all his colleagues. The noble Lord was not a Radical, nor a Whig, nor a Peelite, nor one of the Derby-dilly. He would probably begin with saying to himself that he must have a certain number of old Whigs, for there was no doing without them; then he must have some of those Scotch, for it was impossible to keep them out altogether; and he would next look out for four or five Peelites—a body of Gentlemen for whom he (Mr. Scully) had a very sincere respect. Though the noble Lord did not belong to the Derby-dilly, he might be described as a great omnibus proprietor. He had got some fourteen Gentlemen to occupy his vehicle; he had, in short, his full complement inside, but he seemed to have resolved that among them he would have none of those Irish. Perhaps he thought to himself that if he did they would disturb the whole party; and he would then say, "I shall put them on the roof. I shall put them where they can do no mischief in the streets, and will get a view of the country. As to putting them inside, that is out of the question. I Will then take the dickey and drive the omnibus where I please." He could imagine the noble Lord going on to commune with him- 77 self thus: "Now that I have got my omnibus full I must look out for some one to assist me, who will see what is going on when I am otherwise engaged,—one of smooth and conciliatory manners, who can act as cad. I know of a nice Gentleman, a Manchester man (Mr. Milner Gibson) who will act exceedingly well as cad, though he upset my coach on a former occasion with the help of some of his friends. As for having an Irishman, I will do the Irishman myself: and I will do him in more senses than one. Am I not as witty as any Irishman? Have I not an Irish title and Irish property, with great ability, affability, amiability, sociability, and every other ability belonging to the best specimens of Irishmen?" But the long and the short of it was, the noble Lord excluded all Irishmen from the Cabinet, and from any share in the Government of the country. Some of the most able Irishmen were occasionally admitted into minor places, outside the political omnibus, but the practical effect was to deprive the country of their services, by closing their lips upon all public questions. He could quote not a few examples of the effect produced in this way upon English and Scotch Members. The late Member for Dovor (Mr. Bernal Osborne) was an able man, but after he went into the Government his abilities were lost to the country; and the noble Lord the Member for Forfarshire (Viscount Duncan), though very silent when in office, now that he was out of it might be heard in that House every night. The results of the present system had been that while there used to be seventy-five Liberal Members from Ireland there were now only thirty Members occupying seats on the Liberal side of the House; and that, apart from the hope of bar promotion, no Irishman of ability had any object, either public or personal, to attain by coming into Parliament. He contended that neither the spirit of the Union, nor of the Emancipation Act had been carried out, but had been allowed to remain a dead letter. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Under Secretary for Ireland, the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland, the head of the constabulary in Ireland, and the head of the administration of the Poor Laws in Ireland, were at this time all Englishmen. It had been said no Irishmen of ability came to that House; but if so, the reason was obvious, because if they did they would only lose their time. Irish- 78 men had shown equal ability with Englishmen at college, at the bar, and in the army, at home and abroad, and Mr. Justice Byles, in his "Sophisms of Free Trade," said, "there was no better head than a disciplined Irish one." No one felt less sectarianism than he did; personally he cared nothing for the exclusion he had referred to, but he had felt it his duty to bring it before the House. It had had the practical effect of rendering many Irishmen indifferent to the liberal cause. Formerly five-sevenths of the Irish Members sat on the Liberal side, and only two-sevenths on the Tory side in that House. Now those numbers were exactly reversed. What inducement had an Irishman of position and ability to lose his time in that House? He had laid sufficient ground for moving for this return, and would on future occasions enter more fully into the matter.
§ MR. M'CANNseconded the Motion.
§ LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he rose to express a hope that the Government would not accede to the Motion for this return, because all the information which the hon. Gentleman desired was to be found in the library. With regard to the period since 1806, much fuller information than he sought was given in Thom's Almanack, of which there were two copies in the library, and, unless the hon. Member wanted the pages turned down for him, or the passages read out, he did not know what he could gain by this Motion. The oration of the hon. Mover was evidently directed to one object— that of putting himself forward as a fit and proper person to be silenced by an appointment to some office, and of this he had endeavoured to persuade the House in a "few observations," the utterance of which had occupied something more than three-quarters of an hour. Nothing could be more invidious than to print a return such as that moved for, stating that such a Minister came from this country and another from that—that this Minister was of one religion and that Minister of the other, and he hoped the Government would oppose the Motion. The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Foster) in the earlier part of the evening had thrown out several hints for shortening the Session, but how was it possible to do so if such discursive discussions were allowed to be carried on. The hon. Gentleman complained that it was of no use Irish gentlemen coming into that House; but the proper way for Irish Members to become useful was by making them- 79 selves thoroughly masters of all that related to Irish interests, and always confining themselves strictly to the matter in hand.
§ MR. M'CANNsaid, the noble Lord had proved that he, as an Irishman, was perfectly satisfied to take an outside place on the Derby-dilly.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, there were generally two motives in moving for returns of this sort. Either it was to obtain some information of which the House was not in possession—but that could not be the motive in this case, since there were already books of reference which gave all the information the hon. Gentleman desired in fuller detail and from an earlier date than he asked, so that it was just as easy to find out any of the facts which he wished embodied in a return as it was to turn up a word in Johnson's Dictionary; or the motive might be to bring before the House in an authentic form some information which was not before them authentically; but that description would scarcely apply to this case, since the House of Commons was not like a court of justice, which only took notice of the facts proved before it. If any hon. Gentleman in debate referred to the fact that such and such a statesman held a certain office at a certain time the House would receive the statement as correct, without requiring to have it proved by legal evidence. The two ordinary motives for granting returns did not, therefore, apply in the present case. To the wording also of the Motion he had several objections. The hon. Gentleman asked for a list of Ministers of the Crown; but it was not very clear what was meant by that. Did he intend, for instance, to include the Officers of the Household, or the Under Secretaries of State? It would be necessary, if the Motion were agreed to, that some more precise language should be used in it. Again, there was another point which had been lost sight of. The hon. Gentleman required Cabinet Ministers to be distinguished from others; but it was well known that the Cabinet was not recognized by the constitution of this country; the House of Commons had never recognized the existence of such a council in any of its authentic acts—it was merely a voluntary meeting of certain Ministers, and the archives of the country contained no means of distinguishing between a Cabinet Minister and any other. If these objections were removed, he was not aware of any others which he had to urge against the Motion, except the unnecessary labour 80 which it would impose on the clerks of the public departments, and the expense thrown on the country of printing an unnecessary return. To listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech, it might be imagined that his object was to prove that his countrymen had not filled a distinguished place in the Parliamentary and official annals of this country, but he had always understood that the very contrary was the fact. Burke and Sheridan were two of the brightest ornaments of the House of Commons. Lord Wellesley and the Duke of Wellington were two of the most distinguished public servants this country had ever possessed. At one and the same time the Ministerial party and the Opposition party in that House were led by Irishmen—Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Ponsonby; and others, Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Spring Rice had been prominent Cabinet Ministers. These names were sufficient to prove that Irishmen had distinguished themselves both in official and Parliamentary life. If it were the wish of the House that the return should be made, he would not oppose it, but he could not see that it would be of the slightest use.
§ MR. VINCENT SCULLY,in reply, said, he should take no notice of the observations made upon him by the noble Lord opposite, but if he spoke of him in the same tone a second time he should probably reply by expressions which the noble Lord would not like to have applied to him. He had not been able to find in any book or work the information he required; but it was not denied that since the Emancipation Act was passed no Roman Catholic, he believed, had been appointed a member of the Cabinet. The Home Secretary had said nothing upon that point. He (Mr. Scully) wanted the return to show whether it was true that no Roman Catholic had been so appointed. He should not, however, trouble the House to divide upon the present Motion, but should renew the subject on future occasions.
§
Motion made, and Question,—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Return, in chronological order, of all Ministers of the Crown appointed since the Act of Union in 1800, with the dates of their respective acceptances of, and retirements from, office; distinguishing Cabinet Ministers from those not in the Cabinet.
And, similar Return of all persons appointed to the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Chief Secretary for Ireland, and Lord High Chancellor of Ireland, during the like period,
put, and negatived.