§ COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENTrose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland the Question of which he had given notice respecting the appointment of the late Government, on the eve of their resignation, of Colonel Sir E. R. Wetherall as Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The hon. and gallant Member said, he did not find fault with the late Government for accepting the resignation of Sir Thomas Larcom, but with the mode in which they had appointed his successor. He took exception to that appointment, first, because it had been made permanent, and next, because it was held by a military man—a system being thereby introduced into Ireland quite the opposite of that which prevailed in England and Scotland. Probably his right hon. Friend had made inquiries into the subject since notice of his Question had been given, and would be able to inform them how, when, and for what reason that appointment was made permanent. For a period of eighteen years, or from 1835 to 1853, he found that under the successive Administrations which held Office in this country the appointment of Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was, like that of the Lord Lieutenant, a political office, which changed its occupant with the change of Government itself, and it was not until after that date that it became permanent. In 1835, when Lord Melbourne was Prime Minister, Lord Normanby was Lord Lieutenant, and Mr. Drummond was Under Secretary, and on his death in 1840 he was succeeded by Mr. Norman M'Donald. In 1841 Sir Robert Peel appointed Lord De Grey Lord Lieutenant, and Mr. Edward Lucas Under Secretary, and before Sir Robert Peel left Office Mr. Pennefather held the Under Secretaryship for a year. In 1846, when 745 Lord John Russell was Prime Minister, Lord Bessborough was appointed Lord Lieutenant, and Sir Thomas Redington the Under Secretary. In 1852 Lord Derby appointed the Earl of Eglinton Lord Lieutenant, and Mr. Wynne Under Secretary; and the Earl of Aberdeen, in June, 1853, appointed the Earl of St. Germans Lord Lieutenant, and Colonel Larcom Under Secretary. It was considered in 1835 that it would be advantageous for the country if the office were made a political one, and that the person filling it should be in unison with the Government of the day. The objection to the appointment being made permanent was one of long standing among many of the Gentlemen who represented Irish constituencies; indeed, he might say that almost all the Irish Members entertained a very strong opinion on the subject. The present Government did not wish to treat Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, and he hoped that they would state why a course which was in accordance with constitutional usage, and which had proved very beneficial, had been departed from. He also objected to the office being conferred upon a soldier. Sir Edward Wetherall was, no doubt, a most meritorious man, but the training he had gone through was not of the kind required for an Under Secretary for Ireland. He had distinguished himself as a soldier in Canada, India, the Crimea, and elsewhere, and in 1868 he was taken from the Horse Guards and appointed to the Under Secretaryship. He (Colonel Greville-Nugent) did not deny that Sir Edward Wetherall deserved to be rewarded for his important professional services, but that was a matter that ought to have been left to the Horse Guards. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Colonel Wilson-Patten) might, perhaps, allege that in appointing a soldier to the office he did not depart from the established custom. It was no doubt true that Sir Thomas Larcom was a soldier, but he was an officer of the Engineers, which was a different service from the rest of the army, and, besides, he was employed by the Board of Works in Dublin and on the survey of Ireland for a great number of years before he was made Under Secretary. There was no parallel, therefore, between the appointment of Sir Thomas Larcom and that of Sir Edward Wetherall. The ap- 746 pointment of Mr. Drummond could not be referred to in justification of the late appointment, because Mr. Drummond had been engaged on the survey in Ireland, and had been long acquainted with the country and the people, and had more of their confidence than any other man that had filled the office. If the Lord Lieutenant required to consult a soldier there was the Commander of the Forces, who was perfectly competent to regulate all the military part of the business. An account of the duties of the office of Under Secretary was given in a recently published life of Mr. Drummond, from which it appeared that his functions were exceedingly diversified. For instance, he had to receive and reply to a variety of communications similar to those which were addressed to the Home Office in England. He also had to receive constabulary reports, and to carry on an extensive daily correspondence with the local and stipendiary magistrates, to bring under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant all matters of an important nature, and to communicate with the Chief Secretary and other officers of Government. In addition, he was, during the absence of the Viceroy and of the Chief Secretary, virtually the Irish Government. If it was intended to govern Ireland in future as it had been governed in the past, by all means let a soldier be Under Secretary—let the country, in fact, be kept under martial law; but if they looked to governing Ireland as a constituent part of the United Kingdom, let the great offices in its Government be placed in the hands of civilians changing with the Government of the day; and the sooner they made this office political the better. In conclusion, the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If Colonel Sir E. R. Wetherall, appointed by the late Government on the eve of their resignation as Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, is the same person whose name appears as Deputy Quartermaster General at the Horse Guards; if the appointment is permanent; and, whether the present Government considers it desirable that the whole Civil Administration of Ireland should be under the control of a Military man, holding his appointment independently of the Government of the day, instead of a civilian, according to the custom which 747 obtains in the Government of England at the Home Office?
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Longford (Colonel Greville-Nugent) has thought it his duty to bring before the House the question of the appointment of Sir Edward Wetherall to a very high and important office in the Irish Government. Now, I think the best thing I can do is to endeavour to give an accurate statement of what happened in regard to this matter—a statement which, if it be inaccurate in any respect, will, no doubt, be corrected by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson-Patten). For some time the late Under Secretary for Ireland, Sir Thomas Larcom, had been most anxious to resign the arduous office which he had filled for so many years with so much benefit to the public service. He had, on several occasions, offered his resignation to the Earl of Mayo, and had more than once been persuaded, he believed, by his Lordship, to continue to assist him during his tenure of the Irish Office, especially under the grave circumstances connected with the Fenian disturbances with which Lord Mayo had to deal. Lord Mayo afterwards went to India, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire succeeded him as Chief Secretary. Sir Thomas Larcom then renewed his application for what I may term a release from his laborious duties at the the Irish Office, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire very naturally protested against being deserted at such a time in an office which was new to him by a gentleman of such immense experience. Sir Thomas Larcom accordingly consented to continue in office for some weeks longer. Upon receiving positive information of Sir Thomas Larcom's determination to resign his office, the late Government proceeded to take measures to find a successor; and the result was the choice of Sir Edward Wetherall, a distinguished soldier, then filling an important office in the Horse Guards, where, I must say, the late Government might, in my opinion, have far more wisely left him, with great advantage to the military service of this country. Well, the result of the inquiries of the Government was to place Sir Edward Wetherall in the Irish Office. 748 The letter appointing him is dated the 18th of November, 1868, and he was gazetted on the 1st of the following month. I sincerely believe that that choice was made by the late Government with the best possible intentions. They did, I believe, endeavour to find the best person whose services they could procure to fill the important office which was vacant, and I am far from imputing to them any such impropriety as that of creating a vacancy merely for the purpose of obtaining the patronage connected with the appointment. More than that, I am bound to tell my hon. and gallant Friend and the House that the late Government were perfectly entitled to look upon this office as a permanent one, inasmuch as it had been placed on that footing for some years. I hold in my hand a Paper which has been already moved for, and which will show my hon. and gallant Friend and the House how the change in it was made. The fact is that this office, which until the year 1834 or 1835 was a permanent office, was in that year accepted by a man to whom my hon. and gallant Friend has paid so just a tribute—Mr. Drummond, and converted into a political appointment, which it continued to be until January, 1854. At that time a correspondence passed between the Treasury and Sir John Young, who was Chief Secretary for Ireland, in which Sir John Young gave reasons to show the Government that it was desirable to restore the office to its former permanent character, Sir John Young writes—
It is only of late years, since 1834, that the practice has grown up of considering this office political, and to be filled up by a gentleman attached to the party in power. There is nothing in the duties assigned to the office which invests it with this character; on the contrary, it is of moment that the business chiefly connected with the local administration of justice, the supervision of the constabulary, and the regular routine of the Executive Government, in its details, should, as far as possible, be dissevered from party and political influence, and be understood to be held by an officer not interested in, nor even liable to the suspicion of such influence.The question, therefore, was considered on its merits at the time, and the Paper which I hold in my hand contains a Treasury Minute embodying the views of the Government on the subject, and placing the office on a permanent footing. On that footing it has been filled by Sir Thomas Larcom, under successive changes of Government, until the other 749 day; and upon that footing there can be no doubt the late Government were justified in filling it up. Having said thus much, I feel bound to add that the late Government seem to me to have committed in this matter two very serious errors of judgment. One of those errors of judgment relates to the time at which the appointment was made; the other to the quarter to which they resorted for a successor to Sir Thomas Larcom as Under Secretary for Ireland. As to the time, I think it was a mistake that a Government in a position which I may call in extremis should have filled up an appointment of such vital importance to the Irish Government at a moment when, indeed the responsibility of the choice was theirs, but when the advantages or disadvantages resulting from that choice were to fall entirely on their successors. I think it would have been a wiser course, and one far more advantageous to the public service to have pursued, if the late Government had endeavoured to induce Sir Thomas Larcom to continue in his office a little longer, and had not exposed the new Government to the inevitable disadvantage of coming into Office with a new Under Secretary entirely unversed in the duties of his Department. So much for the matter of time; and with respect to the other point, relating to what I also ventured to call a grave error of judgment, I must say that it appears to me to have been a grave error of policy as well to have recourse to the Horse Guards and to remove from the Horse Guards to Dublin a gentleman who, however eminent he may be as a soldier—and we all know that in that capacity he is both eminent and experienced—yet had never any experience either of civil affairs in general or of the government of Ireland in particular. Such a choice I cannot look upon as having been wise either in Sir Edward Wetherall's own interests or in the interests of the country. My hon. Friend has observed that Sir Thomas Larcom was a soldier in name, and I have no doubt that if he had remained in the military profession he would have been both a gallant and successful soldier. But not to say that he belonged to that branch of the military service which is most civilian in its character, it is idle to contend that he was a military man for any practical purpose when he was appointed Under Secretary for Ireland. 750 The truth is that he was for many years of his useful and active life engaged in the civil service of the Irish Government, and that for the last six years previous to his appointment he was employed under the Irish Board of Works. These reasons are, in fact, specially embodied in the Treasury Minute as reasons for his appointment at the time. The fact then remains that the choice of the late Government fell on a distinguished soldier who had not any of those advantages or any of that civil experience which were possessed by his predecessor. I am constrained to say, in answer to the last part of the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, that the present Government do not, as a matter of principle or of general rule, consider it desirable that this important civil appointment in Ireland should be held by a military man; but that, upon the contrary, they look upon it as necessary for the public service in Ireland that, both in respect of its practical effect on that service and the impression which may be produced on the public mind in that country, the rule should be that this high civil office should be filled by a civilian, according to the custom which obtains in the Government of England at the Home Office. Having said thus much with respect to the general view which the present Government take in regard to this office; I have simply to add a few words as to the view which they take with respect to this particular appointment. In the first place, the present Government are not responsible for the choice which was made by the late Government, who were, strictly speaking, entitled to fill up a vacancy which they had not created. In the next place, I have to state that, in the opinion of the present Government, the very greatest consideration is due to the gallant officer whose case is now before the House. The Government feel sure that Sir Edward Wetherall is wholly blameless in the matter. They feel that he has done nothing whatever which could be regarded as unworthy of his high character and position, and nothing which could disentitle him to receive that equitable and favourable consideration which is due to a distinguished man who, I cannot but think has been placed in a false position. But, carefully subject to these considerations. I have to say that Her Majesty's Government are 751 of opinion that the tenure of this high civil office in Ireland by a military officer ought not to be treated by them as a fixed and permanent arrangement, and they hold themselves entirely free to take such opportunities as may present themselves of offering Sir Edward Wetherall such important military or other employment as may be suitable to his rank and claims, and call upon him to accept that employment. That being the view taken by the Government of their duty in this matter, I have only to add that there is nothing which I have said with regard to any part of this transaction which ought to be or can be regarded as in the slightest degree impairing or affecting the character or reputation of Sir Edward Wetherall.
§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTENSir, my right hon. Friend has made so fair a defence of the conduct of the late Government on this matter that he has left me very little to say on the subject. It is, I hope, unnecessary for me to corroborate his statement, but I may be allowed to observe that I do not believe an appointment was ever made by any Government so little open to unworthy imputations as that of Sir Edward Wetherall. It was, I must confess, a deep source of grief to find that that appointment was treated by the Irish press and public, totally ignorant as they were of the circumstances under which it was made, in a manner which was calculated to give great pain to one of the most upright and honourable men in Her Majesty's service. The same observation applies to the remarks which have emanated from the same quarters in reference to Sir Thomas Larcom. The conduct of that gentleman has been misrepresented in every sort of way. Belonging to the political party to which my right hon. Friend belongs, he was accused of betraying the interests of that party by not retaining his appointment until they acceded to power, and had an opportunity afforded them of naming his successor. That part of the case my right hon. Friend has entirely cleared up. He knows very well that Sir Thomas Larcom tendered his resignation to us over and over again, and that he was requested to remain in the post which he occupied. It was indeed with the greatest surprise that I learned, almost the first day I arrived in Ireland, from Sir Thomas Larcom that it was his in- 752 tention to resign. I appeal to my right hon. Friend, who knows the duties of Chief Secretary for Ireland, to judge what would be the position in which I should be placed if he had at once carried out that intention. I did my utmost to endeavour to induce him to retain his office until I became better acquainted with the duties on the discharge of which I had only just entered. He kindly acceded to that request, and the only return he met with from the press in Ireland was being accused of being actuated by unworthy motives, although nothing could be more honourable or straightforward than his conduct. I must say as much with respect to Sir Edward Wetherall, and I will only add to the statement of my right hon. Friend a few particulars in defence of the Government of which I was a member. As soon as I knew that Sir Thomas Larcom intended to resign I consulted the Lord Lieutenant as to the appointment of his successor. We were unanimous in agreeing that the appointment should be made without the slightest reference to political considerations, and I can also assure my right hon. Friend that we felt it our duty to appoint a man who would be agreeable to our successors in Office. These were the motives which actuated the Lord Lieutenant the Earl of Mayo and myself with respect to Sir Edward Wetherall, and I think in the last respect I have mentioned we have succeeded to the utmost of our ambition, for I believe my right hon. Friend will say that in the short experience he has had of Sir Edward Wetherall, that officer devotes himself to the discharge of his business, free from all political bias. That, at least, was the character given of him when we were considering who to appoint, and I believe Sir Edward Wetherall has acted strictly up to that character since he has filled the office. I can only say that neither the Lord Lieutenant nor myself had the slightest previous acquaintance with Sir Edward Wetherall. I did not know him even by sight until the moment when, by the Lord Lieutenant's direction, I offered him the office. In our choice we were entirely guided by the high character we had of Sir Edward Wetherall from several quarters. We inquired in many, civil and military, and heard in all so good a report of Sir Edward Wetherall that at length we fixed upon him. The 753 fact of his being a military man came under our consideration, and no doubt we did feel that it was a question upon which some difference of opinion might exist. But that consideration was quite overborne by the other recommendations we had of Sir Edward Wetherall. My right hon. Friend is in error in supposing that Sir Edward Wetherall's duties have been always entirely of a military character, for he has been in Ireland and has been consulted by the Executive upon matters connected with the Government. But now as to the policy of appointing a military man at all; I confess I was surprised to hear it stated that it was in accordance with the practice in this country a civilian should always be chosen for a civil office. Why, who was the last political Under Secretary of State for the Home Department? A distinguished military officer (Sir James Fergusson); and if my right hon. Friend will look through all the civil appointments of other Governments he will find that, beginning with the Duke of Wellington, no difference has been made in filling those appointments whether by military men or civilians. I was surprised, then, to hear my right hon. Friend agree with so false a statement as that contained in the Question on the Paper.
§ COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENTcomplained of this reference to the Question as containing a false statement.
§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTENI intended no offence, but the Question insinuates that it is contrary to the rule of the English Civil Service that an Under Secretary should be a military man, and I controvert that statement. My right hon. Friend says that Sir Thomas Larcom was only an Engineer officer, and was not really a military man. Then, I want to know how it was that my right hon. Friend and the Government with which he was connected so often consulted Sir Thomas Larcom upon military matters? The fact that time after time various Governments in Ireland have so consulted him is unanswerable as showing that the late Under Secretary was really regarded as a military officer; and yet when another military officer is made Under Secretary in his place, objection is taken to the appointment upon political grounds in Ireland, and the gallant officer opposite (Colonel Greville-Nugent) says that Ireland is to be under martial 754 law. We do not consider ourselves under martial law in England when a military man is chosen to fill such a post, and the gallant officer must have got this idea from some extraordinary quarter. I contend that the post is one which may be filled equally well by either a civilian or a military man; and if, in either case, the person occupying that post chooses to act unconstitutionally the gallant officer knows that he would not be allowed to retain it many hours longer. I was surprised, then, at the insinuation made against Sir Edward Wetherall that he would take an unworthy advantage of his position.
§ COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENTI never made any charge against Sir Edward Wetherall; I simply objected to the appointment of a soldier to this office.
§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTENThen, what did the gallant officer mean by saying that Ireland would be under martial law because Sir Edward Wetherall was Under Secretary?
§ COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENTI never said any such thing.
§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTENThen, how did the gallant officer intend to argue that Ireland was to be brought under martial law?
§ COLONEL GREVILLE-NUGENTI objected to the system of military appointments to such offices.
§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTENThe Government will, of course, deal with this question as they think fit, on their own responsibility. All I can say is that Sir Thomas Larcom was a military man, and he remained in this office under seven different Governments, three Conservative and four Liberal; and now for the first time it has been objected that a military man ought not to succeed him, because, forsooth, of the distinction between the engineering branch of the service and that to which Sir Edward Wetherall belongs. I think it was quite unworthy of the Government to take up a position of that kind because there seemed to be an opportunity of getting rid of an official appointed by the late Ministry. I will not believe that the Government will take the course until I see them take it. The appointment was made in a most honourable and straightforward manner. And now let me say a word or two as to the period at which it was made. My right hon. Friend says that it ought not to have been made so 755 closely upon our leaving Office. Why did not the Government act upon the same principle when they themselves went out of Office? Have we not heard of a Lord Lieutenant and several other persons appointed only a few days before they left Office? The fact is that Sir Edward Wetherall's appointment was decided upon before the late Government agreed to go out of Office. It astonishes me to be told that under such circumstances a Government must leave such an appointment to be filled up by their opponents on taking Office. Certainly I have not had much experience in Office, but I have been many years a Member of this House, and to me these are quite new ideas.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEI said it would have been more advantageous to the public service had the appointment been delayed.
§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTENMy right hon. Friend said it was injudicious. If the appointment ought to have been delayed, will my right hon. Friend, when the present Government go out of Office, fix a time after which they will fill up no offices, but will leave all appointments to their successors? If my right hon. Friend is ready to give such an undertaking, I can understand and respect his present scruples. As it is, I cannot understand them at all. It is, I believe, an invariable practice that all the vacancies which occur within a reasonable time before the resignation of a Government are filled up by that Government; and I think that if my right hon. Friend will only move for a Return of the number of appointments so filled up within the three weeks before the last six or seven Governments have left Office, he will find that he cannot support the imputation he has cast upon the late Government. Sir, the object I had in rising was to do justice to two most distinguished men. As for myself, I have had a brief experience in Ireland, and it is possible that I may have made mistakes there; but I shall always be of opinion that I have taken part in recommending one of the most distinguished men ever appointed to Office in this country, and I venture to add that when my right hon. Friend knows Sir Edward Wetherall better, he will agree with me that seldom, within his experience, has so good an appointment been made.
MR. GLADSTONEI might, Sir, have been very well contented, after the temperate, careful, and able statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to leave the matter where he left it. But some expressions fell from my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Wilson-Patten), which require some notice by me. My right hon. and gallant Friend opposite has heard the admission of my right hon. Friend near me (the Chief Secretary)—an admission freely made on this side of the House—that in this case there was no imputation of motives whatever. In fact, the character of my right hon. and gallant Friend was on that subject quite a sufficient guarantee. But, having regard to his high character and position in this House, it was frankly admitted by my right hon. Friend that no imputation of that kind could for a moment stand. Yet my right hon. and gallant Friend gave us distinctly to understand—I think I am giving the precise effect of his words—that if Her Majesty's Government thought fit to act upon the principles laid down by the Chief Secretary—namely, that it was not desirable that a soldier, never having had experience of civil business, should be the permanent Under Secretary in Ireland; and if they should make some arrangement which would give to Sir Edward Wetherall an appointment elsewhere, the only motive which could be ascribed to us was, that we took this course because an opportunity was offered of getting a gentleman out of Office who had been put there by the late Government.
§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTENI do not think I said that.
§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTENIf I said so, I withdraw the expression,
MR. GLADSTONEI was sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend must have made that imputation inadvertently. Well, Sir, I must entirely adhere to and support the propositions of my right hon. Friend near me. I am distinctly of opinion that it is a wise and judicious measure by which the Under Secretaryship in Ireland has been made a permanent office. The delicacy of the work of the Executive Government in Ireland is extreme, and it is exceedingly necessary that there should be some person of great 757 experience, authority, and capacity who should be able to carry on the traditions of civil government from one political Administration to another. I was at the Treasury when the office was made permanent, and I do not in the least regret having been a party to that arrangement. So far I am at one with my right hon. Friend opposite, and so far I differ from my hon. and gallant Friend near me (Colonel Greville-Nugent), for he holds that the office ought to be a fluctuating one, and to change with the Government. I feel obliged, however, to demur to the pleas offered in justifiction by my right hon. Friend opposite in the present instance. In the first place, he thinks that the objection taken by the Chief Secretary for Ireland is, that no Government likely to go out of Office ought to make any appointment whatever. My right hon. Friend did not lay down any proposition so absurd. It may be that it is very proper to make some appointments on the eve of quitting Office. It may be that is an error to make other appointments. The only question is—was this an appointment which it was wise for a Government to make on the very eve of quitting Office? It is not any general rule, but it is the speciality of these appointments on which the objection is founded. My right hon. Friend opposite refers to and claims the practice of England, and says that a distinguished military officer was lately Under Secretary of State for the Home Department; but there is the greatest possible distinction between a political and a permanent Under Secretary. Not only is there that difference, not only has a permanent Under Secretary in every office duties to perform that scarcely attach at all to a political Under Secretary, but my right hon. Friend, when he speaks of Sir James Fergusson as a distinguished military officer must remember that for fifteen or sixteen years he was an active, able, and intelligent Member of this House, constantly giving attention to the general course of its affairs, so that he qualified his military habits by a very large civil experience. It is not to one circumstance alone, but it is to the combined effect of several circumstances we must look in judging such a matter as this. Sir Thomas Larcom began by being an officer of Royal Engineers; he was reared in that corps, from which I venture to 758 say, limited as it is, more persons have been selected for civil appointments than have been taken for them from all the rest of the army; but at an early period of his life he left the military profession and educated himself for civil duties. The combined effect of these two circumstances is to create a difference as wide almost as it is possible to conceive between these two gentlemen. There is no reproach to Sir Edward Wetherall; but I venture to say that an ardent and gallant soldier cannot devote the best part of his life to military duties without losing some of his civil capacities; for the habits of military men tend to give them a mode of viewing affairs which is a soldier's and not a civilian's. But in my opinion you commit a slighter error in appointing a soldier to be permanent Under Secretary of State for the Home Department in England than in appointing him to be permanent Under Secretary in Ireland, for it must be remembered that the general spirit of government in England is civil, while in Ireland, unhappily, it is already too military. It has been found necessary to give to the constabulary a military character in a much greater degree than is desirable in a civilized country enjoying political freedom. It is on that account it is desirable a strong civil influence should be brought to bear upon the spirit of Irish administration by the appointment to the office of permanent Under Secretary of a person who has had some experience of civil duties. I think my right hon. Friend opposite overlooked this consideration—that in case the late Government had not gone out of Office it would not have been any great inconvenience to them to have postponed the appointment for three or four weeks; but in making it as they did, they made themselves the judges of who was a fit person to advise and support the new Lord Lieutenant and the new Chief Secretary; they decided who was to be the prop, stay, and adviser of these officers, and that at a time when it was well known that Irish policy was the cardinal point of public affairs, and when, consequently, it was of the utmost importance they should work with those with whom they enjoyed unbroken sympathy. That being the case, I do not think my right hon. Friend on this side has overstated the matter—while rendering the freest acknowledgments to the late Government 759 in the most important respects—in venturing to say he considers they have not exercised a sound discretion. For my part, I must entirely concur with my right hon. Friend in all the tribute he has rendered to the great merits and the high character of Sir Edward Wetherall. The anxiety of the Government will be to do him no wrong; at the same time, it will be to reconcile that purpose of doing no wrong or injustice with the fulfilment of their duties to the people of Ireland and to the great public interests which are at stake.