CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS. (Hansard, 18 August 1881)

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he hoped the Government did not mean to take the Irish Votes to-night. There were some points of some importance in connection with this Vote; and at this hour— namely, 5 minutes past 1 o'clock, hon. Members could hardly be expected to go into them. He trusted the Government would agree to report Progress.

§ MR. W.E. FORSTER
said, he thought that there was not likely to be much debate on this particular Vote. The hour was late, no doubt; but the period of the Session was also very late, and the subject of this Vote had been considered very fully already.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he would formally move to report Progress, and, in doing so, would point out that the Government, in these matters, were thoroughly unreasonable. They had been discussing the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary since 4 o'clock, and all the arguments had been against the Government—in fact, the Government had had no case whatever. The Government had their mechanical majority to support them, and they would be able to carry any Votes with that majority, in spite of the arguments that might be brought to bear against them, and it was perfectly preposterous to take the discussion on Irish matters at a time when that discussion could not be reported. The Government had introduced an innovation of bringing on important Votes at this late hour, and they had set both public opinion and precedent at defiance. A Liberal Administration should pay more attention to the principles of representative government than to seek to obtain money for obnoxious purposes at such an hour in the morning.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
I hope the Committee will consent to make some progress with this Vote. So far as the matters involved in it are concerned, they have already been fully debated in the House. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland is fully prepared to discuss the details of the Votes if hon. Members wish it. I cannot see that by reporting Progress to-night, and resuming to-morrow, that 319 the Votes will be brought on at a more reasonable hour, because totally different questions may be raised on going into Committee to-morrow, the discussion of which may last a long time, and we may find ourselves in no better position to go into the Votes than we are now. We would not ask the Committee to go into any new matters; but these Votes are immediately connected with the subject we have been discussing, and I, therefore, would ask the Committee to allow us to make some progress.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, perhaps the noble Marquess would inform them whether it was proposed to proceed with any other Vote beyond that immediately before the House. If the noble Marquess only intended to go on with this Vote there would be no objection. [Mr. BIGGAR: Yes, there would.] At any rate, there would be no substantial objection. If the noble Marquess would give them an assurance that he would not go on with any other Vote, well and good; but if that assurance was refused, hon. Members like himself (Mr. Callan) would have to vote with the hon. Member for Cavan. If the Government would content themselves with taking merely the Vote for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant, the hon. Member for Cavan might be induced to yield, and the Committee might be allowed to proceed to business at once. That proposition was a very fair one, and if the Government did not accede to it, it would be the duty of the Irish Members to offer a most determined opposition to the progress of Supply.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, the noble Marquess seemed to think that, because two evenings had been occupied in discussing the question of the administration in Ireland, therefore the Votes for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant, and for the Chief Secretary, which immediately followed, were not likely to give rise to a considerable amount of debate. The noble Marquess was wrong; the Vote itself before the Committee was challenged by the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) in regard to the allowance for the Ulster King-at-Arms. The hon. Member, he believed, intended to go to a division; and he (Mr. A. O'Connor) also intended to oppose the proposed allowance to the Protestant chaplain at Dublin Castle. The Vote for the Chief Secretary in- 320 cluded allowances to Inspector of Lunatic Asylums as well as Inspectors of Irish Fisheries; and matters affecting these officers would have to be considered. There was a question to be raised as to the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund, and also questions as to the administration of the Lunacy Laws in Ireland. It was impossible, therefore, to look upon these Votes as though they were not contentious; and be trusted the Government would see the unreasonableness of wanting to discuss them at this hour of the morning.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
The Vote now before the Committee is for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant. Well, matters affecting the Lord Lieutenant have been thoroughly discussed in the House; also the question of the Ulster King-at-Arms. At this late hour, if we are allowed to proceed, I would not propose to go beyond this Vote. I think the Committee might fairly be asked to consider it.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the point upon which he was anxious to obtain information was one upon which he had thought he had handed in a Notice to the Clerk at the Table on Saturday. What he wished to know was whether a member of the Lord Lieutenant's Household had really purchased, on behalf of the Orange Emergency Committee, a considerable quantity of agricultural implements for the use of those people engaged in harvesting the crops on farms from which the tenants had been evicted. He found that, owing to some mistake, whether on his own part or that of the officials, the Question had not reached the Clerk at the Table, and did not appear in the Votes. He did not find that out until Monday, and he had then given a Notice on the subject which stood for to-morrow. He was anxious to know whether it was true that a member of the Lord Lieutenant's Household was actively engaged in assisting the Emergency Committee, because the matter was one which required the very serious attention of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would, no doubt, admit that no officer in the Lord Lieutenant's Household should take any part in any proceeding of that kind. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen the Question, or whether he had been able to obtain any information 321 with regard to it. He had no wish to stand in the way of the Government and the passing of the Vote that night; but he would certainly be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would make the necessary inquiries by telegraph, so that he might have an opportunity of raising the question again on the Report.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he understood the hon. Member to say that he had placed the Question on the Paper.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he had handed it in last week.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
remarked, that he was unable to find the Question upon the Order Book.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he believed he had handed in a Notice of the Question a night or two ago; but he might be mistaken as to the day for which he had put it down. He believed it was for Friday.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he was unable to find the Question, and he would therefore request the hon. Member to put it down again, so that he might have an opportunity of seeing exactly what it was.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
asked the Chairman if he was able to inform the Committee whether the Question had been accepted by the authorities of the House?

THE CHAIRMAN
I have only heard of the Question for the first time now.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he would advise his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to withdraw the Motion; but, at the same time, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would give some assurance or some expression of opinion upon the matter.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that would be impossible until he had seen the Question.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he understood that up to the present moment the right hon. Gentleman had not seen the Question; but his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was endeavouring to procure a copy of it. But surely the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say at once whether the state of things represented by his hon. Friend was not of such a nature as to call for the immediate attention of the Government. As the right hon. Gentleman very well knew, the Emergency Committee went all over 322 Ireland. He did not question their right to do so; but it was also a fact that they were in direct opposition to another organization by whom they were regarded with the bitterest antagonism. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say that if the result of his investigations should prove that the statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was well-founded, steps would be taken by Her Majesty's Government to prevent an official in the service of the Crown from initiating such a course of proceeding. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, without pledging himself to any details, would be able to give some assurance to the Committee upon the matter.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he had no wish to protract the debate, but he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Financial Secretary of the Treasury in reference to the salary of the chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant. He wished to know how it was that this salary was paid by the State? And, personally, he strongly objected to any provision which taxed the people of Ireland for a religion in which the majority of them did not believe. He even thought that hon. Members below the Gangway on the other side of the House, who were in favour of Disestablishment, would not be enthusiastic in voting a salary for a Protestant chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant. He asked the noble Lord to inform the Committee that the next Lord Lieutenant would not be allowed a chaplain, so that the Irish Members might not find themselves called upon, time after time, to contest this Vote. Surely the noble Lord might say that when the present chaplain ceased his functions, future Lord Lieutenants would provide for their own religious services.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, it had always been the practice to provide a chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant, and he did not think the hon. Member would be inclined to say that, in this instance, the chaplain was in any respect overpaid.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
said, the Motion before the Committee had one advantage, seeing that under it they were in Order in discussing a considerable variety of questions indiscriminately. In reference to the information asked for by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he thought it was a 323 matter which might be very easily disposed of, as the House had already been favoured with the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland as to the legality of an employé at Dublin Castle being engaged in a political organization. He understood that the Emergency Committee was a political organization, and the question whether paid servants of the Crown were at liberty to take an active part in a political organization was really a matter which ought to be easily disposed of. He was reminded that a somewhat similar case had recently occurred in connection with one of the electoral contests in Oxford. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Therold Rogers), at an early period, of the Session, gave Notice of his intention to call the attention of the House to the fact that an officer of the House of Lords had constituted himself an agent for the Conservative Party in promoting the election of a particular individual for the City of Oxford. The hon. Member did not follow up the Notice of his intention to bring forward a Motion; but it was well understood that the action of any officer of the House of Lords, in interfering with a political contest, was altogether illegal. This was a similar case. The gentleman complained of was an officer of Dublin Castle, and he either had a right or he had not a right to interfere in the working of the Emergency Committee. Let them, however, have a clear statement of the law; and if it was found that the officer in question was only exercising a legal right, then the fact that he was an officer of Dublin Castle would not justify the Committee in withholding from him his salary. At any rate, the Committee was entitled to have an assurance from the Chief Secretary that the conduct of this paid official would not be repeated.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, he was unable to answer the question, because he really did not know what the facts of the case were. He neither knew who the official was nor what his action had been.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he hoped that the Chairman would be allowed to report Progress. Only a short time ago an assurance had been given by the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to 324 the Treasury that no other Vote would be taken; and, seeing the hesitancy manifested by the Government in regard to the question put to them by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he thought the time had now arrived for reporting Progress. Looking over the Estimate, he saw many objections that might be raised to it. He found, under one of the subheads, an item for salaries and allowances amounting to £788 for Protestant chaplains. But the Protestant Church in Ireland had been disestablished 10 years ago; and why, in the name of common sense, should Parliament be called upon to pay a Protestant minister for performing Divine Service to the Lord Lieutenant and some half-dozen of his menials in Dublin Castle? The Lord Lieutenant was only an inmate of Dublin Castle for some six weeks or two months in the course of the year, and he certainly did not see why Parliament should be called upon to keep up the farce of maintaining a Protestant religious service. Why should a tax be imposed upon the Catholics of Ireland for the services of a hostile Church—a Church which they did not recognize, and a Church which had been disestablished? If the Protestant Lord Lieutenant of Ireland wished to do honour to the Church to which he belonged, he would go in state to St. Patrick's Cathedral or Christ Church, and he would then show, in the face of the Irish people, that he did believe in the Protestant religion; but, instead of doing that, he sneaked into some chapel in the Castle by means of a covered way from his official apartments. It was a most disreputable transaction altogether. If the Lord Lieutenant wished to show that he was a member of the Protestant Church, let him go in state to St. Patrick's, as the Lord Mayor of Dublin was in the habit of doing in regard to the Church to which he belonged. Of course, the Lord Mayor could not go to a Cathedral church as the Dublin Lord Mayors of old were wont to do until one of the national churches was restored to the Roman Catholics. Until that was done he was obliged to go in state to his own church. [An hon. MEMBER: His chapel.] The hon. Member was quite mistaken. It was only Dissenters who called their places of worship chapels. A Roman Catholic place of worship was 325 a church. As the question had been raised in connection with this Vote, he did not see why the whole matter should not be discussed. Why should the Dissenters of England—the rigid Nonconformists who were so fond of crying out for religious equality—vote £788 for the celebration of a religious service to which the public were not admitted, and which none but detectives or subordinates retained in the service of the Constabulary were permitted to attend? Another subject had also been brought before the Committee—namely, the action of some servant of the Crown—some officer of Dublin Castle—some menial in the service of the State who had entered into the speculative purchase of property offered for sale under legal processes. He thought it should be made perfectly clear whether it was actually a fact that it was a creature of Dublin Castle who had purchased the agricultural implements offered for sale, and that he had acted either on behalf of the Protestant Defence Association or of the Orange Emergency Association. He believed there was a very great difference between the two associations. Mr. Groddard, the solicitor and manager of the Protestant Defence Association, acted for the Irish landlords, and received a fee of £3 3s. upon every writ he served; but the Emergency Committee had two attornies; and he wished to know which of these associations it was alleged the official of Dublin Castle was acting for? Nobody belonged to the Protestant Defence Association unless he was a howling swell; and he believed it received a very large amount of support from the Members of the Front Opposition Bench. He thought it would be well for the Government to allow the consideration of the Vote to be postponed until tomorrow, in order that they might obtain information by telegraph as to whether any person was included in the Vote who was connected either with the Protestant Defence Association or the Orange Emergency Committee. There was only one item in the Vote which he should feel inclined to vote for, and that was the sum proposed to be given for Queen's Plates. If they could vote the item for Queen's Plates now, and leave the rest of the Vote to be disposed of hereafter, it would be a most desirable consummation. Certainly, as an important question had been raised by the hon. Mem- 326 ber for the City of Cork in regard to the connection of any official of Dublin Castle with the Protestant Defence Association or the Orange Emergency Committee, he thought, if only for the purpose of satisfying the hon. Member that the further consideration of the Vote should be adjourned, and also for the purpose of enabling the Committee to discuss the item under Sub-head C for the salaries of the present minister, the clerk, and the organist. He was surprised that the Vote had never been challenged before, seeing that the Irish Church had now been disestablished for 10 years. It was certainly high time that any item for the support of the Disestablished Irish Church should now be omitted from the Estimates. He thought the Lord Lieutenant should be required to pay for the services of his chaplain. out of the savings of the Office, and not ask the Roman Catholic public to pay for religious services in which they did not believe.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he had found, on asking for an explanation of the Question of which he had given Notice, that it was considered to be a Question that was not, strictly speaking, in Order, and, therefore, it had not appeared on the Paper. At the same time, he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary might make some inquiry by telegraph into the matter, and give an explanation to-morrow. It was a question that certainly ought not to be allowed to be passed over without inquiry. He had no wish to name the gentleman to whom he referred. All he asked was that the right hon. Gentleman should inquire into the matter, and see if the facts of the case were in accordance with the information he (Mr. Parnell) had received. If the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to do that on the Report, there would be no necessity for any further objecting to the Vote that night; otherwise he thought they ought to ask that the consideration of the Vote should be adjourned until to-morrow.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, there was a little difficulty in the matter. The hon. Member said that he had given Notice of a Question and placed it on the Paper. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) had never seen the Question. He understood, however, that the hon. Member had submitted the Question to the authorities of the House, and that they 327 had decided that it was not in Order. And that was all he really knew about it. Under the circumstances, it was hardly to be expected that he should make any promise. Before doing so he should certainly like to know what had induced the authorities of the House to act in the matter. Until the present discussion was originated he knew nothing about it.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that, under the circumstances, he was afraid that he must persist in the request to have Progress reported upon the present Vote, in order that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary might have an opportunity of making an inquiry and ascertaining what the facts were.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, that if the Question of the hon. Member appeared in the Votes to-morrow, he would pledge himself to get all the information that could possibly be obtained by telegraph. But at present, as he had already stated, he knew nothing of the matter.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he thought there was a simple way out of the difficulty. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) objected to the allowance which appeared in the Vote for one of the aide-de-camps of the Lord Lieutenant, having regard to the fact that with respect to his official position he had done that which he ought not to have done. The allowance to an aide-de-camp included in the Vote was £61, and if that sum were disallowed now, and it should appear, on subsequent investigation, that the gentleman in question had done nothing that was really open to challenge, the Government might bring in a Supplementary Estimate. Under these circumstances, he thought it was impossible to proceed with the discussion of the Vote, and Progress ought to be reported.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he was without the detailed information necessary for inquiry.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he thought it would be better that Progress should be reported and the matter discussed tomorrow.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he thought if the right hon. Gentleman would engage to have the information asked for ready for hon. Members to-morrow, or engage to postpone the Report of the Vote until he could obtain it, then he thought their 328 objection to the Vote might be with drawn.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, if he found the Question on the Order Book to-morrow, he would at once telegraph for the information specified.

§ MR. HEALY
said, it was no fault of the hon. Member for the City of Cork that the right hon. Gentleman was without information, because he had twice given Notice, although it had not appeared on the Paper. He thought it would have been more candid on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to admit that the hon. Member was not in fault.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, if the hon. Member for the City of Cork would state then what it was he wanted to know, he would to-morrow inform him whether he could give him the information or not.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the Question which he had put and repeated a short time ago was simply this—whether a member of the Lord Lieutenant's Household had recently purchased a number of agricultural implements and machinery on behalf of the Orange Emergency Committee from a leading agricultural firm in Dublin?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
observed, that the hon. Member had not given names.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the person who gave the information asked him not to put on the Report the names either of the firm or of the official in question. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman said it was indispensable to have the names he was ready to give them. The name of the member of the Lord Lieutenant's Household was Captain M'Calmont, and the name of the agricultural firm was Messrs. M'Kenzie, of Dublin.

§ MR. CALLAN
remarked, that Captain M'Calmont was a well-known rowdy in Ireland. ["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out to the hon. Member that those words were not decorous, and ought not to be used by hon. Members.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he would not repeat the words, although, if he were out of Order, he thought attention might have been called to the fact without the intervention of the Home Secretary. He had heard similar words used in that House towards persons in Ireland, whom the Chief Secretary called village tyrants, without being called to Order. The 329 official in question was simply an officer in the Army, and if the language he had used was not permissible towards persons of that class, still less was a Minister of the Crown in Order in describing as village ruffians those who held Commissions of the Peace. But there was another matter of far more importance to Members of the Committee. The hon. Member for the City of Cork stated that he had twice placed a Notice on the Paper, and it appeared that now, on the third occasion, by the kind permission of the Clerks of the House, it was to be printed.

THE CHAIRMAN
reminded the hon. Member that he was referring to a decision of Mr. Speaker, which could not be challenged in Committee.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, the Question would appear to-morrow, and if it had not appeared already it was from no fault of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He did not question the decision of Mr. Speaker; but if the right hon. Gentleman had any fault to find, it should be with Mr. Speaker, and not with his hon. Friend. If Captain M'Calmont did buy these agricultural implements on behalf of the Orange Committee, which was a secret body, he certainly ought not to continue to occupy his present position in the Household of the Lord Lieutenant—["Order!"]—and if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was aware of the character of this officer, he would not be so ready to cry "Order!" when he (Mr. Callan) said he was unworthy and unfit to be attached to the Lord Lieutenant's Household.

§ MR. DALY
said, he hoped the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would persevere with his Motion to report Progress. Personally, he knew nothing of the circumstance referred to by the hon. Member for the City of Cork; but if the statement concerning Captain M'Calmont were true, it was undoubtedly a matter of grave importance. As it stood at present, there was clearly a case of reasonable suspicion. The Chief Secretary was guilty of great inconsistency, inasmuch as, having been engaged for the last nine hours in defending the policy of the Government in sending respectable persons to prison in Ireland without giving them the names of their accusers, he had now objected to the hon. Member for the City of Cork not giving the names of the persons 330 concerned in the matter to which he had referred in connection with the purchase of agricultural implements for the Orange Emergency Committee. He thought Irish Members would be guilty of a dereliction of duty if they allowed the Vote to pass without information being supplied from the proper sources as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, it would seem, from the demeanour of the Chief Secretary for Ireland and that of the Home Secretary, that they were determined to screen Captain M'Calmont from the consequences of his conduct. But, instead of leaving the matter in the dark, Irish Members wished to have an opportunity of exposing it in the light of day; and they said it was the duty of the Government to declare that if the facts were as had been stated they would insist on Captain M'Calmont resigning the place which he occupied in the Household of the Lord Lieutenant. It would be but small comfort to the Irish people to have this gentleman in a position where he could do them a large amount of mischief, and where, by using his private influence, he could cause persons to be taken prisoners in the way they had been lately. Hon. Members on that side of the House regarded this as a matter of far too great importance to be decided in the manner proposed. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland said he could not give any opinion upon the case until he had heard the facts. But the facts had been stated before the Committee, and still the hon. and learned Gentleman gave no opinion. Under the circumstances, hon. Members on that side of the House would insist upon having this matter fully investigated.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he thought that this Vote afforded an opportunity for saying a few words about the case of the man Carney, who had been imprisoned for alleged burning of hay. That man, he knew, bore a high character in the neighbourhood, and there was not the slightest reason for supposing that he 331 was connected with the offence charged against him. He was a man paying £1,100 a year rent, and possessed freehold property of the value of £300, and those facts made it very improbable that he could commit such an offence. These men were always put in prison on the evidence of people in respectable positions, such as resident magistrates and police officers; but he thought the fact of this man being possessed of wealth ought to have had some weight in his favour.

THE CHAIRMAN
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain to me whether the Private Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant had anything to do with these warrants, for, if he has not, these remarks are out of Order?

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he believed a good deal of latitude had been given to some Members, and he hoped he might be allowed to refer to this case.

THE CHAIRMAN
I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to show whether the Private Secretary has anything to do with the execution of the warrants. If he has not, it is out of Order to bring up this matter again.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he thought that any man of common sense would suppose that the Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would lay the warrants before the Lord Lieutenant.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
asked whether this allowance to the Lord Lieutenant for a Private Secretary had not some bearing on this case?

THE CHAIRMAN
The next Vote is the Vote for the Executive, and it seems to me that the case would come under that Vote and not under this.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he thought a question should have been addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury as to whether this sum of £829 0s. 8d. was paid to the Lord Lieutenant to be paid to the Private Secretary, or was paid to the Private Secretary himself? If it was paid to the Lord Lieutenant, then he presumed the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) was perfectly in Order in referring to this case. If the money was paid to the Private Secretary direct, then that was a question upon which the Chief Secretary could enlighten the Committee by saying whether it was a part of the Private Secretary's duty to lay the reports and warrants before the Lord Lieutenant.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in possession of the Committee.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that if he was shown that the Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had nothing to do with the execution of the warrants, he should defer his observations until the Question was put that the Chairman should leave the Chair.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he did not know that it was the duty of the Private Secretary to make a report to the Lord Lieutenant in every case, and certainly when he and the Lord Lieutenant had been considering this case he had never seen the Private Secretary at all.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he should move that the Chairman leave the Chair, for no explanation had been given as to what the Chief Secretary intended to do with regard to Captain M'Calmont, and the Irish Members were not being treated properly. When the hon. Member's (Mr. Parnell's) complaint was first made, the Chief Secretary promised to make inquiries; but there was no certainty that either now or upon Report the Chief Secretary intended to give any information upon this matter. That might be a proper way to treat the Committee, but it was not the way to facilitate Business; and certainly the manner in which the Chief Secretary had acted had not produced a good impression upon that side of the House. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should get up and, with a candour which would be new to him, say, having got the name of Captain M'Calmont, and having got the name of Messrs. Mackenzie as the firm who supplied the implements of the Emergency Committee, what more he wanted. That was a straight question, and he did not think it was too much to ask the Chief Secretary to give an opportunity of challenging this very serious charge. He wanted to know from the Chief Secretary distinctly whether or not he intended to afford the Irish Members the information which they required before this question came up again?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the hon. Gentleman had given him no information on the subject; but if the Question 333 should appear on the Votes to-morrow, he would ask for information. He had already promised to do that.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, if the right hon. Gentleman would promise to obtain information before Report, so that the Irish Members might have an opportunity of taking the opinion of the Committee upon the salary of this official, that would be all they desired.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
reminded the Committee that a few nights ago the Secretary of State for War had promised that Vote 2 should not be taken at a late hour of the night, and he thought there was every reason now to ask the Government not to proceed further tonight, especially when it was considered that the Irish Members had been kept in close attendance ever since the beginning of the Sitting. They had been interested in every Vote, and it was rather hard for them to have to continue sitting so late, after having necessarily been in the House since 4 o'clock.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, it was perfectly true that the other night he had at this hour agreed to report Progress; but several millions of money had then been voted. To-night, however, no money had been voted.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he thought it was very hard to ask Irish Members to continue sitting. The Emergency Committee were selling out tenants every day; and it appeared now that the Private Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant was a direct agent in those cases. This light thrown on the remedial legislation of the Government ought to be made known in broad publicity, and this was not the hour at which Irish Members ought to be asked for a Vote of this description. Since Lord Clarendon hired men to asperse the character of Irish patriots, there had been no such singular revelation as that of this Castle official directing the action of the Emergency Committee.

§ MR. HEALY
said, that on the understanding that the Chief Secretary was willing, before the Report, to give the required information, he would withdraw the Motion.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he thought this was far too serious a question to be discussed at this hour of the morning. It was necessary that the subject should be taken when it could be properly discussed—namely, before 5 o'clock in the 334 afternoon. If the allegation of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was true, the Government stood in a position which was really disgraceful. He did not know whether that word was Parliamentary or not, but it was really a scandal; and the proper course for the Government to have adopted would have been for them to have got up at once and have stated that the charge was true, that they felt themselves disgraced by this gentleman, whom he (Mr. Biggar) believed had been one of four co-respondents in a divorce case. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he meant by that to show that the gentleman was of such a character that he should not hold a position in the Household of the Lord Lieutenant. He would put it to the Government whether they were going to allow themselves to be disgraced by this gentleman any more?

§ MR. BARRY
said, he thought that the paid officials of Dublin Castle should not associate themselves with any political organization. [Laughter.] The Chief Secretary might laugh and think it a trivial matter; in fact, he should not be surprised to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was a honorary member of the Orange Association himself. It would be quite in keeping with his whole course of proceeding.

§ MR. LEAMY
said, that the Orange Emergency Committee had been referred to as a political organization; but he would remind the Committee that it was to be seen, from a printed form calling on the landlords to combine, that it was really a proselytizing organization, inasmuch as it called upon the landlords to say whether they would not have Protestant tenants.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
said, he would like to call the attention of his Colleagues to the position in which they would place many of their Friends by dividing on this question. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had distinctly made a proposition to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, which proposition was accepted. Therefore, the course advocated by their Leader would be repudiated by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and others, if this division were taken. What did the hon. Member for the City of Cork ask? It was this—whether the right hon. Gentleman would ascertain by telegraph the facts of the case, and supply 335 him with the necessary information tomorrow? It appeared at first as though the Chief Secretary did not accept the proposal; but he had got up again in his place just now, and stated that he accepted the proposal unreservedly. And upon that, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) rose and said—"We cannot accept that bargain now." The Irish Members would be placing themselves in a false position if they departed from the arrangement proposed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork and accepted by the Chief Secretary. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) was anxious that no proceedings that might be taken on any of these Votes to-night should at all detract from the interesting and important debate that had occupied the attention of the House for the past two days; and he would, therefore, suggest that the hon. Member who moved the Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair, should withdraw it. He would join with his hon. Friends in challenging the other items; but they should show that their object was not to prevent the voting of money for Public Service, but to legitimately point out their grievances.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, what the Government had attempted to do was this— they had endeavoured to screen a most disreputable individual in the person of Captain M'Calmont. The Government had put down the Vote for an hour when no one could discuss it, for the reason that they were thoroughly ashamed of what had taken place. Why did they not say, manfully, that they were ashamed of this person, and that he had disgraced them?

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I really must call the attention of the Committee to the language the hon. Member has just used, and the course the discussion has taken. The hon. Member for the City of Cork has put a Question on the Paper, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has undertaken to inquire into the matter to which it refers, and return an answer. Upon that, what course does the hon. Member for Cavan take? Why, he rises in his place, and accuses Her Majesty's Government of attempting to screen a disreputable person; and he says this, in spite of the representation that has been made to him by the Chief Secretary that he has never before heard of the state of things 336 which has been complained of. The hon. Member for Cavan states that the Government are deliberately screening a disreputable person in reference to a charge they have never heard raised before, and that, I think, is conduct that commends itself to no right-thinking person in this Committee. For my own part, I have never heard this gentleman spoken of before, and I now hear the foulest names applied to him for reasons that are altogether unfounded. The Chief Secretary, whose word, I would venture to say, will be taken by any other hon. Member in this House, makes a statement which is ignored by the hon. Member for Cavan, and I say that this is not the way in which debates can be conducted in this Assembly with credit either to ourselves or the country. Such transactions as these are what the Prime Minister the other day declared as bringing discredit and dishonour on the Assembly. When charges are made which the hon. Member who makes them must know to be baseless—

§ MR. CALLAN
I rise to Order. The Home Secretary has made a statement directly pointed to the Member for Cavan. He has said that charges are made, and the hon. Member who makes them knows them to be baseless. I have to ask you, Sir, whether that is in Order?

THE CHAIRMAN
I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the charges the hon. Member made against the Government were baseless when the Government had assured him that they knew nothing of the circumstances.

§ MR. CALLAN
No, no! I pin the Home Secretary to the words he used. He said the hon. Member who made the charges must know them to be baseless.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
here rose—

§ MR. CALLAN
If the Home Secretary will restrain his impatience and his dictatorial presumption, I will proceed with my point of Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the hon. Member who made these charges must have known them to be baseless. I want to know whether such a statement, coming from a Minister of the Crown, is permissible? The right hon. and learned Gentleman accuses the hon. Member for Cavan of having brought a false charge, and, therefore, accuses him of having told a lie.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
rose.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
What I said was this—

§ MR. CALLAN
I rise to a point of Order. The hon. Member (Mr. O'Donnell) has a right to be heard. ["Order, order!"] I have a right to raise this question.

THE CHAIRMAN
called upon Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
I rose to state what I did say, and it will be for you, Mr. Chairman, to rule whether that is contrary to the Orders of this House. I said that the hon. Member for Cavan, in asserting that the Government were deliberately screening a man whom they knew to be guilty—[Mr. BIGGAR: No, no!]—of disreputable conduct, after the assurance given by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that he knew nothing at all about the matter, had made a charge which he must know to be baseless. I would ask your ruling on this matter?

§ MR. O'DONNELL
I rise on the point of Order to support the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he was interrupted by the hon. Member for Louth, had just said "unless;" and I do not think he or any other Gentleman should be interrupted and called to Order before he has finished his sentence.

THE CHAIRMAN
The argument of the Home Secretary was, I think, quite in Order.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
What I said was perfectly in Order. I will proceed to point out that I do not think it is to the credit of an Assembly like the House of Commons, when Gentlemen who are entitled to credit say they have no knowledge of a certain transaction that it should be assumed that they are acquainted with that transaction, and that they should be charged with screening a disreputable person. The charge is one that should not be brought; it is utterly baseless, and those who bring it know that it is utterly baseless. The hon. Member for the City of Cork, when he was called on to make that charge, manfully came forward and made it, and the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has undertaken to investigate that charge. The hon. Member for the City of Cork, therefore, agreed that, so far as he was concerned, 338 the Vote should be taken, and that further consideration of this subject should be postponed. I will venture to say that no man in this House has a right to assume the charge to be well-founded until it has been inquired into. If accusations of this kind and discussions of this kind, on subjects about which it is necessary that some Notice should be given to the Executive, are to be allowed, it is impossible that the affairs of the country can be transacted as they should be.

§ MR. PARNELL
It appears to me—

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
I rise to a point of Order.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, it appeared to him that the person who was least facilitating the Business of the House was the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was using a Nasmyth's steam hammer to crush a fly when he went so forcibly into this matter. It had not been through any fault of his (Mr. Parnell's) that due Notice had not been given to the Government, because he had put his Question on the Paper. He had handed it to the Clerk at the Table, and, not finding it in the Votes, he had handed in another Question; and even that he had not seen appear on the Votes. A question had been raised by the Home Secretary as to whether the course of Business was creditable to the House. Well, so far as he (Mr. Parnell) was concerned, he thought it was not creditable to the House that the money of the people should be voted away in this manner at half-past 2 or a quarter to 3 o'clock in the morning. It was obvious that the granting of Supply stood on a different footing to any other Business of the House; and he, therefore, thought the Government ought to pause before they attempted to get money in this way and at such an hour in the morning.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
said, he wished to call attention to a point of Order. The Chairman had ruled that the argument of the Home Secretary was in perfect Order; but the question was not whether the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in Order, but whether or not he was in Order in attributing falsehood to a Member of the House.

THE CHAIRMAN
The point of Order is already settled.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
Oh, no!

§ MR. CALLAN
said, the Home Secretary had indulged in his usual violent declamation against the Members who persisted in their Motion after receiving an assurance from the Chief Secretary that he would make an inquiry into the matter, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman had wound up by a direct reference to him (Mr. Callan). Well, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman really wished to condemn or censure him for having in any way whatever thrown doubt on the assurance of the Chief Secretary, he would have been justified in so doing if one condition had been fulfilled, which was if he (Mr. Callan) had in any way whatever thrown any doubt on the word of the Chief Secretary. As a matter of fact, he had done nothing of the kind. He had accepted the Chief Secretary's promise that he would make an inquiry into the matter. The Home Secretary had denounced him (Mr. Callan) for having made a most unfounded charge, but he had made no charge ["Yes, yes!"] He did not require the patriotic interruptions of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), who, they all knew, was looking for something, and was endeavouring to facilitate his search by constant attendance in the House and constant "Hear, hearing!" of the Ministry; and it was to be hoped the hon. Member would not be disappointed in his expectations. With reference to what the Home Secretary had said, he had made a most unwarrantable attack upon him (Mr. Callan), and had reprimanded him for having called him to Order for attributing falsehood to an hon. Member.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was exceedingly artful in having accused him (Mr. Biggar) of doing what he never did do, and then proceeding to found an argument upon this baseless superstructure. [Laughter.] He was glad hon. Members were amused. It was said that he accused the Government of knowing very well that the charge against Captain M'Calmont was well-founded, but he had never done anything of the kind; what he had done was this. Grave charges were brought against Captain M'Calmont, and if they were true Captain M'Calmont was unfit to hold the position he now held, and it was the duty of the Government to make in- 340 quiries into the matter. He had said that, and that was all he had said, and he declared that the Government at this moment were screening Captain M'Calmont, who had been charged with such conduct as would unfit him for any position under the Government. If the charge he had heard made against Captain M'Calmont were true, it amounted to this—that he was acting as bailiff on the Emergency Committee and at the same time holding the dignified position of aide-de-camp to the Lord Lieutenant. The Government had not shown a proper disposition to meet the case.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, there was one point in the statement of the Home Secretary which hon. Members on this (the Opposition) side of the House ought at once to notice. He had put before the Committee the fact that though several Members of the Committee had taken exception to the Vote on one ground or another, the hon. Member for the City of Cork had asked a certain Question and proposed a certain arrangement as to one specific matter, and a certain promise had been made. Upon that the Home Secretary had at once assumed that the hon. Member for the City of Cork being satisfied, all other hon. Members ought to rest satisfied. He did not consider that if his hon. Friend withdrew his opposition to the Vote, he (Mr. A. O'Connor) must do so too. He would not follow his hon. Friend's example, and he would oppose the withdrawal of the Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair, because his opposition was not limited to the particular ground he had stated. He objected to the charge for the chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant, because he thought that, after all, it was a charge which ought not to be allowed to be continued—at any rate, without such protest that Irish Members could make against it. It was a remnant of the old ecclesiastical supremacy they were supposed to have cleared away. He objected to the charge on account of this fact; and he objected, moreover, to the discussion of the Vote being brought on at this late hour. He should oppose the withdrawal of the Motion.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
appealed to his hon. Friend (Mr. A. O'Connor), strong as his opposition was, not to persevere in the intention he had just announced. They might very properly 341 be allowed to retire to rest now; but, of course, if the Motion were persevered in, he should vote with his hon. Friends, as he always did. What he particularly rose for was to express the hope that the time was not far distant when they would have the Home Secretary the Leader of the House. If anyone desired to have this Assembly disorderly, and if they wished that little or no Business should be transacted, they should strive to create the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the House. The amount of acrimony the Home Secretary could influence, the amount of turbulence with which he could distract the most peaceable debate, and the amount of personal temper he could evoke in himself and induce in others in the midst of an almost ethereal calmness, were such as to make him (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) anticipate that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Leader of the House they would not do any Business, either English, Irish, or Scotch, but all their time would be occupied by discussions on questions which personally would be exceedingly interesting, but which would not advance the interests of the country. He made these observations in a spirit of the most perfect friendliness towards the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was to him the subject of never ceasing delight and amusement. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had to-night raised two or three interesting problems; he had asked, for instance, how much nonsense human nature was capable of standing—

THE CHAIRMAN
I must inform the hon. Member that he is really speaking outside the Question.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
agreed with the Chairman; but he was only giving utterance to his anticipation that when the Home Secretary became their Leader, nobody at all would ever be able to speak to the Question.

§ MR. HEALY
asked his hon. Friends if there really was any good purpose to be served by pushing the matter further? It was such a novel thing for him to appear as a moderate Member, that he hoped he would be excused. As the Government had promised to give them the information they desired, he would advise his hon. Friends to consent to the withdrawal of the Motion now under consideration, and, if necessary to carry on their opposition against the Vote itself.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £325 for the salary of the chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he believed the Committee would agree to this reduction when he stated that the chaplain at the Castle in Dublin was a temperance lecturer. The proposal of the hon. Member for Wexford would effect a saving to the country of £325, and would inflict but a small loss on the reverend gentleman in question, who went about maligning the taxpayers, and had been obliged more than once to apologize for the language he had used with regard to respectable tradesmen in Ireland. There was no State Church in Ireland, and, therefore, no reason could be adduced for the continuance of the office.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY
said, he thought it would be better that next year there should be no salaried chaplain at the Castle of any denomination. He thought the Vote might be allowed to pass on the present occasion; but if it were challenged next year, he should certainly join with hon. Members opposite in their endeavour to get it abolished.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he had no objection to the chaplain at the Castle being a water-drinker; but he should vote against the continuance of the charge in the Estimates.

§ MR. HEALY
said, if the Government would state that when the office became vacant they would not make another appointment, he might be induced to withdraw his Motion.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he was not aware that there was any intention of making any alteration.