§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £5,027, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue.
§ MR. FINIGANsaid, he wished to put one or two questions to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury before this Vote was agreed to. First of all, he wanted to know what was the meaning of the item under the heading B—"Lyon King of Arms, £500;" and 736 who was the personage who represented the Lyon King of Arms? He also desired to know what explanation could be given of the item "Secretary to the Bible Board, £600?" He should like to know what the Secretary to the Bible Board had to do, and also what was the particular duty of the Bible Board itself? He hoped the noble Lord would furnish some information as to the persons employed by the Bible Board. The Committee ought to understand what they were asked to vote the money for.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHstated that the Lyon King of Arms was the Chief of the Herald's College in Scotland. With regard to the Bible Board, he believed its duties were to see that there were no inaccurate copies of the Bible published in Scotland. It was, of course, well known to hon. Members that in England the Bible could only be printed by the two Universities and by the Queen's Printers; but in Scotland Bibles might be printed by any printer, and, consequently, it was considered advisable that there should be a check upon the issue of copies of that Book, so as to make sure that inaccurate copies should not be published. The expense of this had been charged on the public for ages past, and it only amounted to a small sum.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the noble Lord if there was any plea for the advocate de diaboli of the index purgatorius in Scotland, because, if there was, something could be said for the keeping up of this charge.
§ MR. HEALYasked if there were any means of preventing any person who wished to do so from publishing an inaccurate version of the Bible? Was there any law under which anyone who wanted to publish a Bible with a chapter or verse left out must send a copy to the Secretary to the Bible Board, who would have to certify as to what had been left out?
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to be informed what was the duty of the Bible Board, with regard, for instance, to the newly revised edition of the New Testament?
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he should like the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury to inform the Committee what were the duties and functions of "Her Majesty's Limner," whose salary 737 was stated in the Vote at £97. What was it that he was required to draw or paint?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, all he had to say in answer to the questions that had been put to him was that some of these charges were relies of the ancient Scottish Monarchy, and were the only ones that now survived in connection with the numerous appointments attached to the ancient Scottish Court. He was not very well acquainted with the details in connection with some of the matters referred to, and he thought the Solicitor General for Scotland would be better able to answer the question put with regard to the law on the subject of the publication of the Bible in Scotland. It was his belief, however, that it was requsite that a copy of every new edition should be sent to the Bible Board.
§ MR. LEAMYasked whether, supposing an incorrect copy of the Bible were printed in England, the Bible Board in Scotland would have power to stop its circulation in that country?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHbelieved that the duties of the Bible Board were simply confined to Bibles printed in Scotland.
§ MR. BIGGARwished to ask what were the duties of the Law Agent to the Bible Board in Scotland? This appointment seemed to him to be the most curious appointment in connection with the Board. He thought the noble Lord ought to be able to give some information on this point. He should like to know what were the duties both of the Secretary and of the Legal Adviser to the Bible Board?
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he should like to know whether if a Catholic printer were to publish the Douai version of the Bible, he would be bound to submit a copy of it to the Bible Board—whether, in fact, the Catholic version of the Bible could be printed in Scotland?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he should like to put a further question to the noble Lord, and that was, whether the office of Secretary to the Bible Board was a sinecure or not? If it were not a sinecure, he apprehended that that officer would have the very pleasant task of looking at every Bible that crossed the Scottish Border in order to see whether it was the correct version. Was it a part of his duty to do this? 738 In fact, was the appointment a sinecure, or was it not? The Committee had already been satisfied about the office of Lyon King of Arms, because the office was one that brought in something; but with respect to the Secretary to the Bible Board, he could not see that the office was one that did any good to the inhabitants of Scotland, or to any other part of the world, the only advantage of the payment of £600 per annum being that the money went into the pocket of some gentleman who had nothing to do in return for it.
MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, the Bible Board had no right to interfere with the publication of any edition of the Bible unless it professed to be the authorized version. Any person in Scotland might print and publish any other version as he pleased. He might publish a new and altered translation and no one could interfere with him. There was not less liberty in Scotland than in England as to printing the authorized version. In England it could be printed only by the Universities or the Queen's Printer. In Scotland it could be printed or published by any man if he received the attestation of the Board as to its accuracy. The office of Secretary to the Bible Board was not a sinecure; but, at the same time, he was of opinion that it was one that might be abolished with advantage.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, no information had as yet been given in reply to his question as to the Law Agent of the Bible Board, and very little with regard to the Secretary, and for this reason he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the amount payable to the Secretary and the Law Agent of the Bible Board.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he meant to include both in his Amendment.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,187, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he found that the Secretary had an 739 officer under him who was a printer by profession, and who was employed as reader in the technical work of revision. The Secretary also had to provide office rooms and papers.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had been about to ask the Solicitor General for Scotland for some information, because he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman might throw some light on the question. He believed he was right in saying that the office of Queen's Printer in Scotland was abolished some 30 years ago. That office used to entail a charge of £6,000 a-year on the public, and in its place the present arrangement had been made. Of course, whoever bought a Bible, like a person who bought butter, wanted to buy the real thing, and although any person in Scotland might, if he pleased, print copies of the Bible, he must not print an unauthorized version. If he did, the public would not have that which they desired to have; but if this Vote were abolished, every person who wanted the correct version would, in future, be obliged to go to the Oxford or Cambridge Press for it.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he would suggest that his hon. Friend should be content with the protest he had made; but he did not understand why they should spend £840 on the two offices that had been the subjects of discussion.
§ MR. LEAMYdid not see why they should have in the office of Law Agent to the Bible Board a permanent official at a salary of £240 a-year, which was to be paid whether he had been engaged in any prosecutions or not; nor did he see why, in the case of the Secretary, it should not be incumbent on the Board to engage a lawyer who might institute prosecutions in case of any breach of the law.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he was not aware of any recent cases in which prosecutions had been instituted. He believed the practice was that proof sheets of every proposed edition of the Bible were sent to the Secretary of the Bible Board, and when these had been gone over by the reader, the Secretary also went over them, and they were then submitted to a meeting of the Board, the meetings being held periodically. If necessary, corrections were made, and these were sent back to the respective printers, who sometimes would incur a 740 good deal of cost in making the alterations.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished, before the Vote was put to the Committee, to ask a question which he regarded as a pertinent one. He wished to ask the Solicitor General for Scotland whether it was not a fact that the Secretary to the Bible Board got £600 a-year, and gave £100 a-year to a tradesman who did the work for him, he putting the remaining £500 a-year into his own pocket for doing nothing? This arrangement was merely because it was necessary to keep up a show of doing some work; but, practically, as far as the appointment of the Secretary was concerned, the office was a mere sinecure. With regard to the appointment of Law Agent, that was also a sinecure; and he believed he was justified in saying that if proceedings were taken at the instance of the Bible Board against a printer for infringing the law, the expenses of the prosecution came out of a totally different Vote. It was, therefore, by no means necessary that the allowance for Law Agent should be continuous, as it was now.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he could not state what the arrangement between the Secretary and the reader was, but no doubt there was some arrangement between them. The results of the duties performed were, as he had already stated, submitted to the Bible Board at their periodical meetings, with such observations as the Secretary had to offer. With regard to the appointment of Law Agent, he was afraid he could not add to what had already been said on that point. All he knew was that the office was one that was still retained.
§ MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he was afraid that the continuance of these offices kept the door open to a form of abuse. He sincerely hoped that such an expression of opinion as had already been given on this subject would lead to this result—that while the present holders of the offices referred to should be permitted to retain them for the rest of their lives, it would be impossible for any Government to continue the appointments. There was an evident abuse which, being perpetrated in the name of the Bible, rendered it all the more intolerable.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he was much pleased to hear what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williamson) who had just sat down. He wished to put this question to the Representatives of Her Majesty's Government—Would they give a distinct pledge that they would not re-appoint men to these two sinecure offices? So far the Government had been exceedingly unwilling to let the Committee know what were the facts of the case; and it would have been far better had the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Scotland come forward at once, and stated what he knew about the matter under discussion.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he could assure the Committee that there would be no new appointments to these offices without the question being carefully investigated.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he thought the statement just made by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was very satisfactory; but he would have saved a good deal of wasted time if he had made that statement before, and had said not only that no future appointment would be made to either of the two sinecure offices, but that no such appointment should be made without submitting the matter to that House. If, in the course of the coming winter, one of these officials should die, what course would the Government be likely to take? There ought to be some pledge that it should not be filled up without the sanction of the House.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, after what had just fallen from the Prime Minister, he would, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw his Amendment. He should like, however, to say, with regard to the Queen's Plates that were given for racing purposes in Scotland, that he was very sorry to see these items upon the Votes. He was well aware that in saying this he differed in opinion from some of his hon. Colleagues upon the subject of horse-racing; at the same time, he made it a rule which he did not like to break to oppose the Vote of money for such purposes, and if any other hon. Member would support him, he should 742 certainly move to omit the sums put down for these Queen's Plates.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £9,239, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland and certain Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERwished to say a few words on behalf of his constituents the fishermen on the coast of Ayrshire, between Ballantrae and Girvan. This was one of the most important herring fisheries in Scotland. The fishing took place in February and March. Outside the great spawning bed at Ballantrae there were considerable trawling grounds, where great quantities of cod and other fish used to be taken by lines; but the beam-trawlers had swept away the lines, and the fishery was destroyed. The fishermen had asked him (Colonel Alexander) to forward a Petition to the Fishery Board against beam-trawling. He had received a courteous answer from the Secretary that he could do nothing. In the year 1866 a Sea Fisheries Commission was appointed, consisting of the present First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) and Mr. James Caird, a distinguished agriculturist. This Commission arrived at the curious conclusion that beam-trawlers were Free Traders and ought to be encouraged, whereas those who opposed beam-trawling were Protectionists and ought to be discouraged in every possible way. In 1878 another Commission was appointed, consisting of the late Mr. Buckland, Mr. Walpole, and another gentleman, which arrived at a different conclusion. The Commission reported that the Ballantrae fishermen had made out a strong primâ facie case against beam-trawling inshore, and thought the Legislature should give the Secretary of State power to stop beam-trawling inshore should it be necessary to do so. He (Colonel Alexander) wished to know whether the Secretary of State (Sir William Harcourt) would carry out the recommendation of the Commission, and ask Parliament for power to stop beam- 743 trawling inshore at any place where he might consider it necessary so to do?
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was able to confirm what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member(Colonel Alexander). His (Sir John Hay's) constituents were largely interested in this question. There were numbers of these hardy and excellent fishermen who, when they went to sea, found their legitimate occupation seriously interfered with by trawling vessels coming from a distance. It seemed to him that the recommendation of the last Commission ought to be attended to by the Home Secretary; for although he had great esteem and respect for Mr. James Caird, he did not know that his knowledge of sea fisheries was very extensive. He (Sir John Hay) had paid great attention to the Reports of the Commissions, and he did not see why the advice of the later Commission should not be acted upon. There was no doubt that great mischief was done by the trawlers to the legitimate occupation of the fishermen on the coast. They were a set of men who were hardy and excellent fishermen, and well deserving of encouragement. There was plenty of room outside the line fisheries for the trawlers, and he trusted the Government would give effect to the recommendation of the last Commission.
§ MR. WEBSTERsaid, the question now under discussion had been brought forward by him at an earlier period of the Session, and the Motion he had then submitted was negatived on a division. He was glad to find that hon. Gentlemen opposite were now inclined to concede the principle for which he had contended; and what they had said encouraged him to hope that when this question was brought forward in another Session he should be supported by those hon. Gentlemen. At present, however, the question had been decided by what had previously taken place.
§ SIR JOHN HAYwished to say that although the hon. Member (Mr. Webster) had his entire sympathy in the Motion he had formerly submitted, that Motion was brought on at an hour in the morning when he (Sir John Hay) did not happen to be present. It was, however, a matter with which he hoped the Lord Advocate might interfere in the sense suggested by the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) and himself.
§ COLONEL ALEXANDERsaid, he hoped the Home Secretary would give a reply to the point he had raised. It would only be necessary for him to interfere in those cases where he might think it necessary to do so.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it was unfortunate the Lord Advocate was not in his place when the question was opened, and he did not think that the Representatives of the Treasury were well qualified to decide this question. He could only say that the facts would be brought before the Lord Advocate.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had received several letters from Kerry with reference to an item in this Vote, which was regarded with a good deal of jealousy by all the fishing interests in Ireland. They complained that the Irish Members gave their consent for the voting of public money for certain purposes in Scotland, when similar grants were persistently refused to the interests in which they were concerned in Ireland. He referred to the item "Cutter and Boat Service; Pay of Officers and Crew of Cutter; Victualling; Repairs and Service Stores—Fishery Station Votes amounting to £2,430." It was of great importance to the fisheries on the Coasts of Ireland that they should be protected; but they were not. As a matter of fact, they suffered a great deal from the trawlers, who also frequented the Coast of Scotland, as well as from the great misconduct of the number of foreign fishermen, principally French, who habitually broke their nets. He believed that the Scotch fishermen, in common with the English and Irish fishermen, had sustained much injury from the Belgian fishermen, who made use of instruments which were called "Belgian devils." The cutter mentioned in this Vote had proved of great service in protecting the Scotch fishermen from the depredations committed by these foreigners, and it had also been useful in maintaining the peace and preventing dangerous quarrels among the Scotch fishermen themselves. The Irish fishermen suffered from the same evils, and the Inspectors of Fisheries had repeatedly made urgent representations as to the advisability of establishing a good Cutter Service in the Irish waters, such as was voted by the House in favour of the Scotch fisheries year after year. But 745 the Irish fishermen had hitherto found it impossible to secure due attention on the part of the Government to this very reasonable application, and it therefore became necessary that the Irish Members should make a distinct stand upon this point. He was sorry to appear to oppose the Scotch Vote, especially as he was inclined to think that the Scotchmen did not get so much from the Imperial Revenue as they had a fair right to in many instances, and he was, generally speaking, inclined to support the Scotch Members in the representations they made as to the inadequacy for the sums voted for the Scotch Service. But on this occasion he felt it necessary to exceed the representations that had been made to him from Kerry. Therefore, he should move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £2,430, in the hope of being enabled to obtain some assurance from the Government that the claims of Ireland in this matter should receive the same treatment as those of Scotland.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £6,809, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland and certain Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHwas understood to say that much consideration had been given to the subject before it was decided to send a vessel to the Scotch Coast. A greater number of Scotch fishermen were employed there than the number of Irish fishermen on the Irish Coast; and it did not follow that because a gunboat had been placed off the Coast of Scotland to prevent the depredations of foreign vessels, that one should also be sent to the Irish Coast for police purposes. He was not aware that disturbances had occurred in connection with the Irish fisheries; but if, on examination, it was found to be necessary, a gunboat would be sent.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought the mind of the noble Lord was still insufficiently impressed with the importance of this question. In the Report of the Fishery Commission of 1879 he found an expression of opinion that there ought to be a properly equipped vessel on the Irish Coast, for 746 the purposes of carrying out fishing experiments and discovering new fishing grounds. He did not think the noble Lord had any claim whatever to take further time for the consideration of this matter. As long as there has been a Report from the Fishery Commissioners, so long had there been a paragraph in it demanding that a vessel should be sent to the Coast of Ireland, and the Inspectors of Fisheries had declared, on their own responsibility, that a necessity existed for this gunboat. There had been a discussion a few days ago upon the subject of the Irish fisheries, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland had, upon that occasion, given an assurance which was satisfactory as far as it went.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Member for Galway that, although it was allowable by way of illustration to show that there was no Vote for a gunboat off the Coast of Ireland, it was not competent to him to discuss the question of the Irish fisheries upon the Scotch Vote.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORthanked the Chairman for his ruling. He had quoted the Report of 1879 by way of illustration,' and would conclude the few observations he had to make by a reference to the Report of 1880, which said that "the attendance of a gunboat or two was necessary during the mackerel season to protect the fishery." The Commissioners of Irish Fisheries were every year pressing this question upon the Government; the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) had also, on more than one occasion, brought it before the House, and he had never heard him speak upon the subject without impressing the immense necessity which existed for placing a gunboat off the Irish Coast, for the purpose of protecting the fisheries. He therefore trusted that the Government would lose no more time in carrying out this recommendation.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, that the Committee were not only asked to vote £2,430 for Cutter and Boat Services, but there was also a charge of £200 for salary of the commanding officer of the Vigilant cruiser, besides £100 for salary of the commanding officer of H.M.S. Jackal, and another sum of £50 in connection with the gunboat. It would really seem as if the whole Navy were concerned in the protection of the Scotch fisheries; 747 but, leaving that point out of the question, he was quite at a loss to understand why the commander of the Jackal should receive £100 in addition to his naval pay.
MR. DICK-PEDDLEsaid, the Scotch Members had quite recently shown their readiness to support measures for the development of the Irish fisheries; but what they were asked to do now, as a means of aiding Ireland, was to acquiesce in refusing the Vote for the fisheries of their own country. That might be an Irish way of securing the desired end, but it was certainly not a Scotch one. He hoped that the Irish Members would give up their opposition to this Vote.
§ SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would remind the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the Committee that the course adopted by hon. Members near him was the only means they had of calling attention to the necessity which they believed existed for placing a gunboat in Irish waters. He could assure the Committee that no better service was done than that performed by the Vigilant and Jackal; and he trusted hon. Members for Ireland would not wish to improve the Irish fisheries so far as to remove these vessels from the Coast of Scotland. He approved strongly the stationing of gunboats of the Navy at various places for the purpose of protecting the fisheries, because, amongst other reasons, it gave their officers and men excellent experience of waters which it required much skill to navigate. He was entirely opposed to stopping the Jackal and the Vigilant in their work off the Coast of Scotland; but he should be glad to hear that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to do what was requested by Irish Members, if necessary.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHexplained that the extra pay to the commanding officer of the Jackal was for work done in connection with the Scotch fisheries, which was much more difficult than that which was usually performed by naval officers. If upon further examination it was found that a gunboat was required off the Irish Coast for the purpose indicated by hon. Members opposite, he should be glad to do everything in his power to persuade the Board of Admiralty to station a vessel there. The question of disputes between English and foreign fishermen would be 748 discussed at the International Congress, which was shortly to meet at the Hague. He must remind the Committee that the reason for sending a gunboat to the Scotch Coast was very different to that which might exist in the case of the Irish fisheries. It was purely a matter of police as regarded Ireland, and he could hardly believe that the same state of things existed off the Irish Coast as off the Scotch Coast.
§ MR. E. COLLINSsaid, he was perfectly sure there was no disposition on the part of his hon. Friends to reduce the Vote for the Scotch fisheries. The question of having a cutter in Irish waters had been discussed during the last few years by those interested in the Irish fisheries; and the Irish Fishery Commissioners had impressed upon the Government the desirability of sending a boat for the purposes they had indicated. But he would like to mention, for the information of his hon. Friends, that there was a great distinction to be drawn between the objects contemplated by the Irish Fishery Commissioners and matters of police. He also reminded them that a gunboat was sent to the Irish Coast, and occasionally a cruiser, which looked after the Irish fisheries. For these services no separate Vote was taken in the Estimates, but it formed a charge upon the Admiralty.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it was not his intention to proceed to a division; but he had felt it to be his duty to take formal notice upon this Vote of the different treatment accorded to Scotland and Ireland. In asking permission to withdraw his Amendment, he begged leave to say that his appeal to the Government for the stationing of a vessel in Irish waters was made as much in the interest of the Scotch as of the Irish fishermen. A Return showed that in one season there were 60 English, 115 Irish, and 187 Scotch vessels engaged on one Irish fishing ground, while further down the coast, at Ardglass, as many as 213 Scotch vessels were engaged. The placing of a vessel on the coast would, therefore, be for the advantage of the Three Countries. He might also mention that inasmuch as the Scotch boats were larger than the Irish, their interest in the matter was proportionately greater. It was not only for police purposes that this was required, but for the protection of fishermen and fishing pro- 749 fishermen. The Report stated distinctly that it was necessary that a cruiser should be stationed off the coast of Kerry and Cork for the protection of the mackerel fishery from those depredations. When the question again presented itself he trusted that, for the reasons he had stated, they would receive the support of Scotch Members in aid of the claim for a boat to be stationed off the Coast of Ireland.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (3.) £3,944, to complete the sum for the Board of Lunacy in Scotland.
§ MR. WEBSTERsaid, he had been requested to bring forward a question which was the subject of a Petition he had presented to the House from the Convention of Burghs. The question was as to whether it was not desirable that the Lunacy Board should be merged into the Board of Supervision for the Relief of the Poor in Scotland. The Committee would observe that the charge under this head was considerable—namely, £5,944, of which £3,200 was for the salaries of Senior Commissioner, Commissioner, Senior Deputy Commissioner, and Deputy Commissioner; and these gentlemen, in addition to the amount of their salaries, had an allowance for travelling expenses of £1,000. There were also a secretary and a staff of clerks, whose salaries brought the total amount under that head to the sum of £4,864. Now, it had been very clearly pointed out by the Convention that a great part of the business of the Lunacy Commissioners was devoted to the oversight of pauper lunatics, most of whom were kept in the parochial poor-houses, which were under the direct charge of the Board of Supervision of the Poor in Scotland. It, therefore, deserved grave consideration whether the business of the Lunacy Commission might not be superseded and merged, as he had before said, into the department of the Board of Supervision, whose business underlay and embodied the greater part of that of the Lunacy Commissioners. He confessed he had up to the present time not been able to get sufficient information to justify him, with due respect and regard to the Committee, in proposing on that occasion absolutely to do away with the Commis- 750 sion; and he, therefore, confined himself to giving Notice that if, upon further consideration, it appeared to Scotch and other hon. Members that this Commission had seen its day, and that it should be merged into the department for the relief of the poor, the question would be deliberately raised again next year.
§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)pointed out that the Lunacy Commissioners were appointed for the purpose of carrying out certain Acts of Parliament. They were medical men, and performed duties with respect to all public and private lunatics throughout Scotland; and, under the circumstances, he did not think that the staff was more than adequate for the requirements of the service. It might be that on some grounds the union of the department with the Board of Supervision of Relief to the Poor was desirable; but he could hold out no prospect that it would take place.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (4.) £5,746, to complete the sum for Registrar General's Office, Scotland.
§ (5.) £5,582, to complete the sum for Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for Public Health, Scotland.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to elicit from the Government some explicit statement as to their intentions with regard to the sum of £10,000 which appeared as a grant in aid of medical relief under this Vote. It was a matter of just complaint in Scotland that this grant was limited to so small a sum as £10,000, having regard to the very lavish expenditure for the same purpose in England. He believed the Prime Minister had on the previous day expressed some intention of dealing with the matter in speaking on the Motion of the hon. Member for Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick); but it had not been easy to gather exactly what it was that the Prime Minister was desirous to convey. He would, therefore, be glad to know whether the Government proposed to ask for any Supplementary Estimate this year for the purpose of rectifying the existing inequality?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it would not be possible for him to add anything to the explicit statement made by the Prime Minister, and which, he believed, was perfectly understood by all Scotch Members. He should regard 751 perty against the depredations of foreign it as simply a waste of time to attempt any further explanation.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he believed that hon. Members below the Gangway on that side of the House were entitled to a civil reply from the noble Lord when a question affecting the expenditure of public money was addressed to him. He wished to elicit from the noble Lord whether the Government intended to make any immediate alteration in the arrangements which at present existed with respect to the Medical Board in Scotland, and whether, in order to do so, it was proposed to enlarge the Vote by a supplementary sum?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the Prime Minister had distinctly stated that no change would be made this year, but that the matter would be considered next year.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,270, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses.
§ MR. FINIGANsaid, he objected to this Vote en bloc, and, in saying that, he wished to state that his objection was not to any individuals, but to the whole system of paying for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. He had heard, in that House and elsewhere, great speeches delivered on the tyranny of government in certain countries; but he would not now refer to any other system of government than that at Constantinople, which was, in his opinion, the only one which could be reasonably compared with the English system of government in Ireland, and he was quite aware that the Lord Lieutenant's Household in Dublin was kept up on a somewhat similar principle to that which regulated the household of a Pasha under the Turkish rule. He protested against, and was bound to oppose, any system, with all its surroundings, that supported a tyrannous rule in Ireland, and which kept up a permanent staff of effete officials such as that provided for in this Vote. He found that the salaries for the House- 752 hold of the Lord Lieutenant amounted to £3,631. Now, he said that a household which took so large a sum of money must be of an extravagant kind, and it was very hard for Irish Members to be asked to vote £3,631 to maintain a household which directly supported a wretched system of government. For that reason he should vote against the charge. Then there was another item, under sub-head D, for the Ulster King-at-Arms, to which he had last year called the attention of the Committee. Happily, there were no Kings in Ireland; and there they did not want even an Irish King, and certainly not the anomaly called the Ulster King-at-Arms. For his own part, he thought that Kings and Ireland would do very well apart, and that the Irish people would be much better without either the realities or emblems of Royalty. Besides the amount of salary paid to the Ulster King-at-Arms, he saw, on referring to a foot-note, that he received £500 a-year as Keeper of State Papers. Now, this system of giving duplicate offices to one individual had been common in England, and much more common in Ireland, and such offices, as a general rule, were State rewards to persons who had rendered services, not to Ireland, but to those who misruled it. Therefore, he opposed the Vote, first, on account of the Ulster King-at-Arms holding duplicate offices, to which he objected on abstract grounds, and secondly, because he objected to the office itself. He further objected to the item of £25 for emblazoning arms. In moving that the Vote be reduced by two-thirds of the whole total, he expressed a hope that Irish Members would divide against this charge again and again, not in opposition to the individuals included under it, but in opposition to, and as a protest against, a system of government which, he thought, should be done away with as quickly as possible. He wished to see Ireland ruled, if it must be so ruled, in accordance with the so-called Act of Union, which had been violated in spirit and word, in equity and in law, and in every possible way. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by two-thirds of the total amount.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,423, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course
753
of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses,"—(Mr. Finigan.)
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether he would be in Order in afterwards moving a reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,800 for salaries of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member would be in Order in moving the reduction of the Vote by £1,800, but not the reduction of an item after a reduction had been moved on the total.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, in that case he would ask his hon. Friend to withdraw the present Motion, to enable him to move the reduction of the household expenses.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had given the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) an opportunity to do so; but he had decided to move the reduction of the total, and it would, therefore, not be competent to the hon. Member for Queen's County to move the reduction of an item.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he understood the hon. Member for Ennis to make his Motion upon two grounds. His first objection was to the Vote en bloc; but he (Mr. W. E. Forster) presumed that as long as the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland was kept up the Committee would vote the sum necessary for maintaining the present form of government in Ireland. The hon. Member then especially objected to the charge for the Ulster King-at-Arms. This Vote was similar to that for the Lyon King-at-Arms, and he found that the present occupant came into office in 1853, when it was fixed that his salary was to be £200 a-year in addition to fees. But by a Treasury Minute of the 25th February, 1872, it was settled that the salary was to be £750 in lieu of fees. Since that time fees had been paid into the Exchequer to the amount of £6,015, by which it would be seen that the Treasury had been gainers of a considerable sum annually. He understood also that the office was not to be again filled up without the consent of the Treasury—that is to say that, on the office becoming vacant, there would be an opportunity of considering whether it should continue or not. With regard to the duties of the Keeper of State Papers, he 754 wished to observe that they were performed by the Ulster King-at-Arms in the most efficient manner, and that the amount charged in the Estimate for the services rendered were no more than an adequate remuneration to that officer.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman apparently had not thought it right to make any reply to the general observations of the hon. Member for Ennis. He joined with his hon. Friend in his strong objection to Royal Courts, under all circumstances; and if he objected to Royal Courts à fortiori, he objected to Vice-regal Courts which were very shams, and he contended that the effect of the Vice-regal Court on the people of Dublin was to bring to the surface all the snobbish elements of society. Such persons had for a long time uniformly opposed everything in the shape of the regeneration of the Irish nation and the advance of public opinion. If in London anyone desired to find a class of persons a little below the Corporation of the City, it would be necessary for him to go to those parts of the Metropolis where the Royal tradesmen "most do congregate," and then it would be found that every proposal emanating from the party which represented progress and improvement was met with uniform opposition on the part of these hangers-on of Royalty. It was precisely the same in Dublin. In that city there was no resident aristocracy, but in its place there was a number of officials, professional men, and tradesmen. The Vice-regal system in Dublin was kept up by various expedients, notably amongst others by the influence of the weaker sex. If you wanted a professional man to take any manly and straightforward action upon a question of policy in Ireland, he would be sure to be got at by the patronage which, in the shape of large salaries, the English Government had under its control in Ireland, and which were kept up to an extravagant figure simply because they were not the rewards of professional ability, but because they were bribes by which the talent of the country could be kept in the anti-national ranks. But he would be completely secured by the female belongings of the Lord Lieutenant, and an invitation to a ball was one means by which the Government in Ireland was propped up by the Lord Lieutenant and 755 the Chief Secretary. With regard to the present holder of the office of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland he had nothing to say beyond that he worked in silence and secresy, and that he had probably blushed occasionally to find himself famous by allusions which Irish Members were compelled to make in that House to some of his operations. He had nothing to urge personally against the present holder of the office, whom he believed to be a high-minded nobleman; but he pointed out that they were dealing with a country the majority of whose inhabitants at the present moment were in such a state of destitution that the Government had been obliged to overthrow on their behalf the principles which related to the land. It was in such a state of things that there was a Lord Lieutenant in Ireland with a salary of £20,000 a-year and a household which was charged at the additional sum of £3,631. And, then, in order that his religious wants might be attended to, he was provided with a chaplain whose salary and allowances amounted to £780. Finally, there was the Ulster King-at-Arms with the salary of £750 a-year, who, although he had never had the pleasure of seeing him, he presumed belonged to something in the nature of the order of beadles. However that might be, to spend £750 in a wretchedly poor country, for the purpose of keeping up this miserable and ghastly remnant of feudal days, was rather too much to propose in a House composed of Liberals pledged to economy. This question had been brought before the Committee on previous occasions by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and by the late Joseph Hume, who repeatedly asked that a change should be made; and whenever the opportunity should present itself of following in the footsteps of the latter, whom he regarded as a trustworthy guide in political questions, whether English or Irish, he should protest against this Vote in the belief that he would, by so doing, act in conformity with the wishes of the English and Irish people. When he contrasted the poverty of the people of Ireland with the enormous expenditure on State officials, he regarded the latter as the embodiment of the worst form of foreign customs which existed at the present day; and for that reason, and 756 for the purpose of convincing the Government of their sincerity, he trusted his Colleagues would always meet this Vote with persistent hostility.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) rather conveyed the impression that the payment to the Ulster King-at-Arms was a loss to the country; but the fact was the reverse of this. The fees for the last five and a-half years which had been paid into the Treasury amounted to £6,015, as against five and a-half years' salary,. which amounted to £4,135.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not attach much importance to the item of Ulster King-at-Arms. After all, arms were but the hieroglyphics of nobility, and as such, perhaps, might be of interest to persons of an archaeological turn of mind. Although he was not opposed to the office in the hands of its present occupier, he hoped that when it became vacant, it would not be again filled up. If the Lord Lieutenant then chose to pay an officer of the kind out of his own pocket, no one could of course object to his doing so. But his objection to the Vote rested on larger grounds. He agreed with a Member of the present Government in saying that the whole system of administration by the Lord Lieutenant was a mockery and a sham. He had himself heard a Member of the present Government use these words, at a bye election, when he was endeavouring to obtain the Irish vote—
We owe you," he said, "a debt; and as one who feels we have wronged you—not in his own person, but in those of his predecessors—I will endeavour, in connection with honest men, to wipe out the memory of those crimes and obliterate the last traces of English misrule in Ireland, and I hope the day is not distant when this farce of the Lord Lieutenant will be got rid of.These were the words of one of the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. Moreover, he had heard an Irishman say in the House of Commons—I can understand what people talk about when they speak of the sunshine of Royalty, but the moonshine of Viceroyalty is utterly incomprehensible.But his objection to the office was not only that it was a sham and a mockery, but because the powers intrusted to the Lord Lieutenant had, to his mind, been grossly abused. That House had extended to the present Lord Lieutenant 757 and his Chief Secretary very exceptional powers, and such as had never before been extended to any authority in Great Britain. They had placed the liberties of the people of Ireland at the arbitrary will of two men, with regard to one of whom he must say that the present Lord Lieutenant had shown that he was very much given to that turn of mind which enabled him to see reasonable grounds of suspicion against men whom he and his subordinates or satellites might choose to represent as fit subjects for imprisonment. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had, in his place in that House, repeatedly stated that these powers were conferred in order that persons of bad character and unruly members of the community should be placed under restraint when it was found impossible by ordinary process of law to prevent them carrying out their mischievous designs. But the result of these powers was that the turbulent were at large, and that the village ruffians were safe and perfectly free. There was no single village tyrant in prison in Ireland under the Coercion Acts, and there was no single Queen's County landlord who for one moment was in apprehension for his personal safety. There was a tyrannous attitude towards the people that would go far to break the spirit and crush the independence of any population less elastic than the Irish people. But, on the other hand, the Chief Secretary had listened to interested representations—had given his ear to the persistent suggestions of men who, whether they were supported by Secret Service money or not, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not know, but who had instilled into him the idea that the men most trusted by the people were fit subjects for the exercise of his exceptional powers; and it was found from one end of Ireland to the other, men whose lives up to the present had been blameless, against whom no specific charge could be brought—men who were trusted—
THE CHAIRMANI would point out to the hon. Member that the right time to discuss this subject is on the next Vote for the Executive. This is simply a Vote for the Household.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, quite so; but he would do away with the Lord Lieutenant, and he would include the household in the comdemna- 758 tion. He would recommend a "bag and baggage policy" for Ireland as complete as was suggested for Bulgaria. He objected to this household of the Lord Lieutenant, and he objected to the Lord Lieutenant himself. He supposed if there were no Lord Lieutenant there would be no necessity for the household, and therefore he objected to the expenditure for the household of the Lord Lieutenant. He wished to say that he did not make his observations with regard to the arrests in Ireland without personal knowledge. He had good personal knowledge of years standing with many of the men now imprisoned.
THE CHAIRMANI have pointed out to the hon. Member that the question of the arrests comes under the Vote for the Executive. This is simply a Vote for the Household, and his remarks are out of Order.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, as, of course, he was not in a position to challenge the ruling of the Chair, there was absolutely nothing for him to do but to submit to it, which, under the circumstances, he did. But he would go on to the next head of the Vote—the salary and allowances to the chaplain. The chaplain of Dublin Castle received £184 12s. 8d., and an allowance, in lieu of a furnished house, of £150—that was, in a round sum, £335 a-year for a chaplain for Dublin Castle. He was under the impression that the Lord Lieutenant for the time being must necessarily be a Protestant and a member of the Church of England, and the chaplain presumably would be a member of the same Church. This was a charge, therefore, for the appointment, in a Catholic country, and where the Church of England had been disestablished, and which was maintained out of the taxes upon a Catholic population, of a chaplain—to which appointment a member of the same faith as the great majority of the people was not eligible. This appointment of a chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant, from which Roman Catholics were excluded, was a remnant from the days when the ecclesiastical supremacy of the majority of the people of this country was maintained in Ireland. He objected, therefore, to this pay to the chaplain to the Castle of Dublin; and the "reading clerk,'' of course, would come under the same condemnation, as did also the organist, 759 the master of the chair, and the keeper of the chapel. He did not know whether it was necessary to refer to the item of £1,562 for Queen's Plates to be run for in Ireland. He fancied that those who derived any benefit from these Plates did not belong to the great bulk of the people of Ireland; but as objection was not raised to a similar item in the Scotch Vote, he would not oppose this particular item. He regretted that it would not be in Order, according to the ruling of the Chairman, to discuss the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant in connection with the household provided for him by the House. His official residence—the Castle—had over its gates the emblem of Justice, and it was remarkably well placed, for its back was turned to the people.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, the Committee had heard a great deal about the Ulster King-at-Arms; could the Chief Secretary give any information about another official, the "Kettle Drummer," and could he also say what were the duties of the ''Serjeant of the Riding House?"
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he should like to ask a question with regard to some enclosures in Phoenix Park, and he thought the inquiry would properly come under this Vote. Why was it that the "swells" of Dublin, and none but those connected with the Castle, were allowed intakes from the Park for cricket and other purposes?
§ MR. HEALYsaid, of course, if it was out of Order he would not put the question; but he thought that the Committee, being now upon the Vote for Household Expenditure, this matter would come under it.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, as to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Water-ford, the office of "Serjeant of the Riding House" was instituted in 1843, with a salary of £30 a-year, in lieu of the appointment of a Master of the Riding House, with a salary of £200. The "Kettle Drummer" was the only remnant of a band of a drummer and six trumpeters appointed in the days of Charles II. He received £61, and when the present holder of the office died the question of renewing the appointment would be re-considered.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he should be glad to know if the Chief Secretary could inform him by whose instructions were the intakes from the Park in the neighbourhood of the Castle made, and whether they were permitted in favour of others besides those having connection with the Castle? He would also like to know if the state of friction still continued between the Veterinary authorities and the Lord Lieutenant with regard to the sale of milk? Formerly, the Lord Lieutenant sold his milk and his cabbages, and the result was that the Veterinary authorities of Dublin insisted that there should be the usual inspection, and the Vice-regal milk was for a time stopped. Did that state of things exist now, or had an Order in Council exempted Phœnix Park from that veterinary inspection, which was insisted upon in respect to other dealers in milk and keepers of cows?
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, as to the first question, it had been ruled by the Chairman as not being pertinent to the Vote. If the hon. Member would give Notice of a Question on the subject, he would endeavour to answer. As regarded the other point, he had heard of no state of friction, and he was not aware that the Lord Lieutenant sold milk and cabbages.
§ MR. FINDLATERsaid, he must protest against the idea that the people of Dublin had any wish for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy. He had been a citizen of Dublin for 40 years, and had every means of knowing that the views of the citizens were quite the reverse of those that had been put forward by hon. Members, who, after all, were not Dublin ratepayers.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he was not prepared to dispute the statement of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Find-later) that a large proportion of the population of Dublin were in favour of the maintenance of the Lord Lieutenant. This would be found to be the case in the neighbourhood of every centre of the aristocracy. The small shopkeeping class in every village set more value upon the small amount of their sales to landlords and land agents than on all their other business. The same was the case in Dublin. All those who obtained custom from the Castle, or who got invitations to State balls or ceremonies, or 761 who were on terms with those who were sometimes invited, or who got employment directly or indirectly with regard to matters of this sort—all these were exceedingly anxious there should he no change. The vanity of women also showed itself in connection with the Castle ceremonies. But all this was what he objected to. Any political spirit that was displayed in other parts of Ireland never found moral support in the capital of the country; but, on the contrary, there were always objections and adverse criticisms from the parties in place, and those under their influence. Another objection to the present system was that the class of persons he had referred to—the genteel and semi-genteel people of Dublin—instilled into the ears of the Lord Lieutenant the most absurd and erroneous ideas as to the wants and wishes of the Irish people. Any good intentions he might have had no support. The Lord Lieutenant and the Government in Dublin were so ear-wigged by the shopocracy and the professional classes that they were misled as to what was desirable and what ought to be done for the good of the Irish people. Then he was justified as a taxpayer—as an Imperial taxpayer—in objecting to a Vote of this kind; and he did object to the Vote as a whole, and without reference to special items, though he did especially to the item for Ulster King at Arms, though the right hon. Gentleman very skilfully referred to the fees that some parties paid to this official. Why not leave him to the support he received from this source? Of course, if there was to be a Lord Lieutenant at all, he must have a household; but what was wanted was to get rid of the Lord Lieutenant and his household with him. It seemed to him that English and Scotch Members ought to assist Members from Ireland in getting rid of an unreasonable and anomalous expenditure, just as Irish Members would assist in putting an end to a useless expenditure in Edinburgh or elsewhere. He could not understand why English Members should insist on voting for expenditure for matters which were, in his opinion, at least, most unreasonable. Of the Lord Lieutenant himself he knew nothing, except that his name appeared as the signature to warrants for consigning prisoners to gaol. Nothing seemed to be known practically as to his 762 abilities or capabilities; he seemed to be a mere blind tool in the hands of wirepullers, beyond which he did nothing. Surrounding him the Lord Lieutenant had secretaries and a staff of clerks; but it seemed an absurd thing that he should require this array of clerks, aides-de-camp, Steward of the Household, Gentlemen Ushers, and so on. All these were matters for which a Vote should not be asked, and he considered he was only doing his duty in refusing such a Vote. All these things had a tendency to demoralize and corrupt the genteel and semi-genteel population of Ireland, and the trading classes, who hoped to get occupation in connection with these offices. They lessened the influence of Members of Parliament and of public opinion, and encouraged a great amount of mischief, and, on the other side, not a word had been said in defence by the Chief Secretary.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he was not surprised that the Lord Lieutenant had not received any defence, because he believed that, if out of Office, the Chief Secretary would join with the political section to which he belonged in seeking to abolish the office, the Four Courts of Dublin, and every distinction that distinguished the capital of Ireland from the position of a provincial town such as Manchester or Liverpool. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) did not represent the mass of the educated opinion of Ireland, for that mass was in favour of retaining the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, and with an increased brilliancy, if possible. It was regarded as one of the land marks of Irish Nationality. ["No, no!"] He had his own opinion as a Nationalist, and had expressed it before many of those who interrupted him were known in the political world. He looked upon this Lord Lieutenancy as a golden link to the Crown, and he looked forward to the time when instead of being a mere appanage to the Crown, one of the Princes of the Blood Royal would assume the office of Lord Lieutenant, and a son of Her Majesty open a Parliament in Dublin composed of Representatives of the opinions of the country. Those who had a stake in the country and were anxious for their country's prosperity wished to see that day, and he hoped to see it yet, though he was not so sanguine as he was some half-a-dozen years ago. But as to what 763 had been said of the opinion of Dublin, if that alone were favourable to the retention of the office of Lord Lieutenant, it would not merit much consideration, for Dublin was not the capital of Ireland so much as it was the capital of the flunkeyism of the country, and he would wish to remove the office of Lord Lieutenant from the dingy gilding that now surrounded it and to brighten it into a real Royal Court. He should vote for the retention of the Vote if the Amendment was intended as an expression of opinion against the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
§ MR. REDMONDsaid, he thought it was the duty of Irish Members to offer strenuous opposition to Votes which were asked for for the maintenance of institutions which they believed prejudicial to the true interests of the country. He believed that the institution of Lord Lieutenant was altogether bad. It formed in Ireland a centre for the demoralization of the whole country. Those who represented the feelings and aspirations of the people had too much reason to look with despair upon Dublin, because every national movement, every outcome of national sentiment from the Irish people met with opposition always directed from Dublin. What the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater) said with respect to the opinion of Dublin was no doubt strictly correct, and no doubt that opinion was in favour of the retention of this institution. It was but natural that it should be so, and the institution itself had created such an amount of national demoralization and national degradation in Dublin as was quite sufficient to account for the opinion. What the state of Dublin society was could be gathered from the descriptions of Charles Lever and others, and it was known that Dublin society was made up of men who had no right whatever to pose as the gentry of the country. Public opinion in Dublin had grown corrupt under Castle influences, and that was why the opinion of Dublin was in favour of an institution which the rest of Ireland viewed with strong dislike; and those who desired to see this influence abolished were determined that the Vote should not be carried without a full expression of opinion upon it. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had gratified his wish to stand up as the only Member on those Benches to say a word in 764 favour of the maintenance of this institution. He was within his right in expressing his opinion; but the distinction he had gained was not to be envied, for there was no question that throughout Ireland the vast majority of the people were bitterly hostile to this institution. Dublin was the rallying point of anti-national opinion; Dublin opinion was demoralized and corrupt, and there could be no thoroughly healthy national life there until the officialism of the Castle and its evil traditions were entirely swept away. There were many reasons that made him anxious to oppose this Vote, and he hoped that the opposition would be carried to a division. Amongst other reasons, because the Lord Lieutenant, whose existence as such was called in question upon this Vote, was the ostensible mode of carrying into effect the tyrannical coercive laws. The only reason why he seemed to have any existence in Ireland was because his name should appear at the foot of warrants issued in Ireland for the purpose of incarcerating men against whom no crime was alleged, men who ever commanded the respect and esteem of their fellows. But he would not infringe upon the Chairman's ruling; and he sincerely trusted that on a subsequent Vote there might be a more legitimate raising of the questions attaching to the office, as well as others in connection with the Gentleman who filled the ill-starred office of Chief Secretary. On this Vote he would say nothing further, and he hoped a division would be taken if only to show that the hon. Members for Monaghan and Louth did not share the opinions of the majority of Irish Representatives.
§ MR. FINIGANsaid, he had not heard one reasonable argument in support of the Vote, but many why the opposition should be continued. He disputed altogether that there was any justice in supporting a Vote of this large sum of money annually, to maintain a foreign Household in the capital of Ireland.
§ It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Chairman reported Progress.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.
§ House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock.