Commons Sitting of 23 February 1882

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Contagious Diseases Acts, appointed and nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1881–2—Class I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS; Class II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS; Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE; Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART; Class V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES; Class VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES; Class VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Beer Adulteration * [82]; Corn Returns * [83].
Committee—Boiler Explosions [4]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Post Cards (Reply) [74].

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE—THE EXETER POST OFFICE.
  MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEasked the Postmaster General, If he is aware that the building of the new Exeter Post Office has not yet been commenced, although the site thereof was purchased last May; and, if he can explain the cause of this delay; if he is aware that the time necessary for the completion of the building is estimated at three years; if he is aware that during that term a considerable sum of money will have to be expended on temporary improvements to the present building, in consequence of the increased work likely to arise through contemplated Departmental changes; and, if the Post Office are satisfied that the new site is large enough to warrant the belief that no complaints of insufficient accommodation are likely to arise in future?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that the first plan drawn up for the new Post Office had been found not to provide sufficient accommodation. In consequence it had been necessary to prepare a revised plan, which was now under the consideration of the First Commissioner of Works. He could assure his hon. Friend that he had been careful to satisfy himself that the revised plan would provide sufficient accommodation. There would be as little delay as possible in building the new Post
  1362
  Office; and he did not anticipate that much expense would be incurred in making a temporary enlargement of the old Post Office.

COURT OF THE LAND COMMISSION (IRELAND).
MR. MACFARLANE (for Mr. GRAY)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland for the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, Whether his attention has been called to the Reports of cases decided by the Irish Land Commission, reported by the official reporters to the Commissioners, Messrs. Cecil E. Roche and Luke Dillon, barristers-at-law, Part I. for November 1881, in which is given the address of Mr. Justice O'Hagan on the opening of the Land Commission on the 20th October 1881, and to the fact that from that address is omitted the following passage from the address actually delivered by Mr. Justice O'Hagan on the occasion, as to the principle on which the Courts would fix a fair judicial rent, that is to say, that the rent should be
"A rent which might he fairly paid, and yet permit tenants, not deficient in those qualities of industry and prudence which are expected in any walk of life to live and thrive;"
and, whether he can state how this dictum of Mr. Justice O'Hagan came to be omitted from the Report of the official reporters to the Commission?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The Chief Secretary was not aware until recently of the existence of these Reports. The more important judgments which are published in them are revised, as is customary, by the Judges, and that fact is stated in the title of each reported case which is so revised. In the introduction to the first part of these Reports, the reporters published so much of the observations of Judge O'Hagan at the opening of the Court of the Land Commission on matters of practice as the reporters considered requisite. The learned Judge has informed me that this introduction was not submitted to him for revision, or revised by him, nor until this matter was mooted did he even read the introduction. He was, therefore, not aware of the omission referred to in the Question, and was quite under the impression that the introduction reproduced verbatim what he had actually said.

AUSTRIA—THE INSURRECTION IN HERZEGOVINA—PRESENCE OF RUSSIAN OFFICERS.
MR. SCHREIBERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is informed that the Russian Government is granting leave of absence in large numbers to officers of the Russian Army, who avail themselves of it to join the insurrection in the Herzegovina, against the friendly and allied Government of Austria? His Question was, in effect, whether Russia was doing at that time in Herzegovina what it did in 1876 in Servia?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; we have received no such information, and there is no reason to suppose there is any foundation for the statement.

AFFAIRS OF EGYPT.
LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the paragraph that has appeared in the "Daily News" and "Standard," to the effect that a full agreement has now been established between all the European Powers regarding the Egyptian Question; and, if so, whether he is at liberty to state to the House the terms of such agreement?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I think the noble Lord will see that as I previously refused Papers I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.
LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Would the hon. Member lay before the House any information on the point when he gets it?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I will refer the noble Lord to the debate which took place on the first day of the Session in "another place," in which the matter was somewhat fully discussed. All I will say is, that it is not proposed to lay any Papers before the House at present.

COPYRIGHT CONVENTION WITH THE UNITED STATES.
MR. HINDE PALMERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any further correspondence or negotiation has taken place since the issue of Blue Book C. 2870, towards the formation of a Copyright Convention between Great Britain and the United States.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Mr. West, on proceeding last autumn to his post as Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, was instructed to make certain proposals to the Government of the United States with the view to the conclusion of a Copyright Convention. The negotiation is still in progress.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— CHARLES O'BEIRNE.
MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland for the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, Whether Charles O'Beirne has been in prison since 3rd June; whether he did not promise to investigate each case at the end of each three months; whether the charge is suspicion of the prisoner having caused a threatening notice to be delivered to some person: whether prisoner has been offered his discharge if he will sign a declaration not to again break the Law, he having always declared he was innocent of the charge for which he is now imprisoned; whether, in case he infringed the Law for the future, he would have an equally good remedy against the prisoner without, as with, the declaration asked for; and, whether, taking all the circumstances of the case into account, he will order the immediate discharge of Mr. O'Beirne?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Charles O'Beirne has been detained since the 3rd of June, 1881; and his case, as well as the case of every other person so detained, has been examined at the end of each period of three months. The cause of his detention is—as stated in the list submitted to Parliament on the 7th instant—that he was reasonably suspected of causing to be delivered a threatening message requiring persons to desist from following their lawful occupations. Mrs. O'Beirne having preferred her memorial to the Lord Lieutenant representing that she was in delicate health and unable to attend to the business, His Excellency was pleased on the 1lth instant to order that O'Beirne should be discharged on parole on his signing a promise to be of good behaviour and not to engage in the Land League agitation while at large. Mr. O'Beirne refused to give any such undertaking, which, however, would not

1365
have implied any admission on his part of the charge on which he is detained. Unless such undertaking is given the Chief Secretary is unable to advise His Excellency to order Mr. O'Beirne's discharge at present.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE CLERK OF THE PEACE FOR LONGFORD CO.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland for the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, Whether the recent vacancy in the office of Clerk of the Peace for the county of Longford has been filled in the ordinary way by uniting that office with the Clerkship of the Crown; and, if the ordinary course has not been pursued, whether he will state the reason for the exceptional proceeding?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): At present there are difficulties—which it is not necessary to state—in the union of these offices; provision, however, is made for the temporary, but efficient discharge of the duties of the office of Clerk of the Peace.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— SEC. 32—EMIGRATION.
MR. RANKINasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland for the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, Whether there has been, so far, any considerable amount of emigration amongst the Irish peasantry under the Emigration Clause of the Irish Land Act of 1881; and, if so, whether any statistics as to the numbers and destinations of those who have emigrated can be furnished to the House?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): No Sir. Up to the present there has not been any emigration under the provisions of the 32nd section of the Land Act, no application for that purpose having yet been made by any competent body or authorized person.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE SESSIONS CLERK OF EDENDERRY.
MR. MOLLOYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland for the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, For what reasons, and upon what grounds, the magistrates in the Petty Sessions dis-
1366
tricts of Edenderry, Fahy, and Clonbullogue, in the King's County, disregarded the circular issued to them of the 20th November 1869, and appointed John J. Barns sessions clerk of the above districts, notwithstanding that the said John J. Barns is disqualified for that post under the regulations and rules of the said circular, for, among other reasons, that he is over fifty years of age, being ten years beyond the limit of age under the conditions of his qualifications; and if it be a fact that there were several applicants who possessed the necessary qualifications for that post; whether the said John J. Barns was a car-driver and shopkeeper, possessing none of the necessary qualifications; and, whether he has failed to enter into the required securities?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Mr. Barns is, I understand, above 40 but under 50 years of age. In the opinion of the magistrates, with whom the election rested, he was the only competent candidate for the office of Petty Sessions clerk, to which he was elected, and their opinion of his competency is justified by the fact that he has given every satisfaction to the magistrates in the discharge of his duties, and he has perfected the required securities. There are several instances in which it has been found necessary to make exceptions in the indicated limit of age mentioned in the Circular referred to.
MR. MOLLOYinquired whether it was not the fact that the Act fixed 40 years of age as the limit for these appointments?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, his impression was that the Act did not impose this limit; but it was by the Circular of His Excellency. The magistrates were of opinion that the other applicants were not competent to discharge the duties of the office.

CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—FAHY PETTY SESSIONS—SAUNDERSON v. MEREDITH, AND LENCHAN v. MEREDITH.
MR. MOLLOYcalled the attention of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the cases tried at the Petty Sessions of Fahy, King's County, on 13th February instant, viz.

1367
the cases of Saunderson v. Meredith, Lenchan v. Meredith, and the same v. the same, each being cases of assault, and asked, If it be true that the defendant Meredith was convicted in each case, and compelled to enter into and find sureties of £100 each to keep the peace for 12 months; whether the said Saunderson is the Dr. Saunderson, the medical doctor of the district, and Lenchan, the other plaintiff, is the servant of Dr. Saunderson; whether the said Meredith is Mr. Charles Meredith of Coolville of Rhode, in the said county, and is at present under military protection; whether, upon the decision above-mentioned of the presiding magistrate, the said Meredith expressed his contempt for the decision given, and then called upon the people "to Boycott Dr. Saunderson," and expressed his intention of using his efforts to do so; and, if this be the case, whether he will issue a warrant for the apprehension of the said Meredith; and, if not, if he will release those whom he has imprisoned upon the same charge?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): This Question, and the remaining Questions which were to have been put to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, I must ask hon. Gentlemen to postpone until the Chief Secretary is in his place, which I hope will be this evening. Most of them are personal matters addressed to himself, and some of them are Questions which, of course, were matters of policy, and would be entirely beyond my province.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (ENGLAND)— RETURN OF PROSECUTIONS.
MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the number of prosecutions for cruelty to animals in England during the year 1881, and especially the number of prosecutions for the cutting, wounding, and maiming of cattle, sheep, horses, dogs, and cats during that year; and, if he can state the number of pigeons or doves, and similar harmless creatures, which have been shot and often cruelly mutilated, for alleged purposes of sport combined with bets and wagers for profit, at Hurlingham and similar places during the same year?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: With regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I may inform him that he will find the information he requires in the Judicial Statistics already laid upon the Table of the House. With respect to the second part of the Question, I am disposed to doubt whether it is serious or not. If it be serious, I can only say that I have no information from which I can state the number of birds and harmless animals which are killed either in England or Ireland.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that, in order to supply the information which appeared from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to be wanting, he begged to give Notice of his intention to ask for a Return of the number of cases of cruelty to animals in England and Ireland during the year 1881, with particulars as to places and other details as to the seriousness of the offences in each case in both countries. He should also ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if it were true that during the last three years the number of cases of prosecution for cruelty to animals in England had nearly reached the total of 20,000?

POST OFFICE—THE POSTMASTER GENERAL'S PRIVATE SECRETARY.
MR. WARTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has given an appointment on the establishment of the Secretary's Office, General Post Office, to his own private secretary, that gentleman not having been examined by the Civil Service Commissioners, and holding no certificate from them; and, whether he is not disqualified by reason of his being over the age for such an appointment?
MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the hon. and learned Member, I have to state that I have not given an appointment to my Private Secretary in the Secretary's Department of the General Post Office without his having been examined by the Civil Service Commissioners, or holding a certificate from them. A power is conferred by the 7th clause of the Order in Council of the 4th of June, 1870, upon a Chief of a Department, with the consent of the Treasury, to nominate, under exceptional circumstances, a person for employment in the Civil Service. I considered that these circumstances existed in the case of my Private Secre-

1369
tary, and, with the consent of the Treasury, I have nominated him to a vacancy in the third class clerkships in the Secretary's Office of the Post Office. But his appointment will be dependent on his passing an examination and obtaining a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners. With respect to the question of age, my Secretary is in his 27th year; but that does not affect the appointment.

RUSSIA, AUSTRIA, AND GERMANY— RUMOURED DISAGREEMENT.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, without detriment to the public interest, he can inform the House if there is any reason to apprehend a disturbance of peaceful relations between the Empire of Russia and the Empires of Austria-Hungary and Germany; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken, or will take, any steps, by mediation or otherwise, to avert so grave a calamity?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government do not apprehend any such disturbance; and, consequently, there has been no occasion for them to take steps of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

TREATY OF BERLIN—BULGARIA.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have protested, or intend to protest, against the system of Government established in Bulgaria in supersession of the liberties acquired under the sanction of the European Concert?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There has been no Correspondence on the subject since that laid on the Table last Session. Her Majesty's Government have no intention of interfering by themselves in Bulgarian local affairs.

AFFAIRS OF EGYPT—THE DESPATCHES.
MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Despatch purporting to be signed by Lord Granville on the 26th of January upon the affairs of Egypt, and published in the "Times" of the 22nd of February, is authentic; and, if so, whether the Despatches alluded to by Lord Granville can now be produced?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I can inform my right hon. Friend that the Despatch to which he refers is authentic; but, with regard to the second portion of his Question, I may state that the Question which stands in his name for to-morrow, and to which I shall then reply, is in substance the same as that which he now proposes to put.

TREATY OF BERLIN, ARTICLE 23—THE EUROPEAN PROVINCES OF TURKEY.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs, Whether any steps have been taken, or are about to be taken, to establish the Provincial Autonomies in European Turkey guaranteed by the 23rd Article of the Treaty of Berlin?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Papers marked No. 52 in Parliamentary Paper No. 4, 1881, and No. 58 of the same Blue Book. Article 23 does not make any provision for enforcing the promulgation of the reforms.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked whether he was to understand that, subsequent to the presentation of the Papers to Parliament, no action had been taken by Her Majesty's Government with the view of obtaining the execution of the 23rd Article of the Treaty of Berlin?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: On the advice of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, the Armenian Question has been pressed in the first instance.

ENGLAND AND FRANCE—THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is to be understood that the evidence taken by the Departmental Committee, promised to the House by the Secretary of State for War, is not to be presented to the House; whether the new Committee now proposed is to sit with closed doors like the previous one; and, whether the Houses of Parliament will be excluded from making an open inquiry in the usual manner into the whole subject?
MR. GLADSTONE: The answer is a very clear one. The Report of, and the Papers connected with, the inquiry of the Departmental Committee will, of course, be presented to Parliament. They will

1371
be collected for the use of Parliament not less than for the use of Government, but subject necessarily to the usual reserve respecting points of a scientific or military character which it may not be desirable to bring into public view. As to the second Question, it is the uniform practice of Parliament in inquiries of this kind to proceed with closed doors; and I have no doubt that practice will be conformed to. In regard to the third part of the Question, unquestionably there would be no limitation whatever to the duty of Parliament to make inquiry in either House; and, moreover, the Government reserve to themselves to consider what course they shall recommend Parliament to pursue, and they would, if they saw fit, be quite free to recommend a Parliamentary inquiry. They are in no way precluded from doing so by the purely scientific inquiry now going to be made. There is a fourth portion of the Question which has been curtailed, but which, being once printed, I shall read—Whether the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor) is to continue his present double position of Member of the Government and Chairman of one of the Channel Companies, pending the proposed inquiry. The proposed inquiry, which has reference to the national safety and defence, has no relation whatever with the Office of my noble Friend. With regard to that Office, it is right I should say that he assumed his position in the Government less than two years ago, and that he has been Chairman of one of the Tunnel Companies for no less than 14 years. Should a case in which the duties of these two positions will be incompatible arise, I have no doubt that he will be the first to observe it; but I should be very sorry if such a case should arise; and in that regret I have no doubt the House will agree with me.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— THE ARREARS SECTION.
MR. M'COANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, in view of the very trifling extent to which the Arrears Section (.59) of the Land Law (Ireland) Act has as yet proved operative, Her Majesty's Government intends, by Order in Council or otherwise, to extend the time, now about to expire, during which applications for advances under the said
1372
section may be made by tenants desiring to avail themselves of its provisions?
MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the first part of this Question, the Act leaves no discretion to Her Majesty to proceed by Order in Council, the language of the Act being in the 59th clause—"Application for an advance under this section cannot be made after the 28th of February, 1882." With regard to the other part of the Question—namely, whether we are prepared to proceed otherwise than by Order in Council by submitting a Bill to Parliament—I am not in a position to contract any engagement as to the introduction of any Bill for the amendment of the Land Act.

INDIA—BERAR—SIR RICHARD MEADE AND SIR SALAR JUNG.
VISCOUNT BARINGasked the Secretary of State for India, with reference to his answer in the House of Commons on 1lth August last, Whether he has been placed in possession of the views of the Government of India in regard to certain allegations made last year in the "Statesman" Magazine derogatory to the character of Sir Richard Meade, late Resident at Hyderabad; and, if so, what action he has taken in the matter?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: A Report on this matter was received from the Government of India in October last, to the effect that, in their opinion, it was conclusively proved, by papers in their possession, that in the transactions called in question in The Statesman articles, Sir Richard Meade had acted under the orders, and in entire accordance with the wishes of the Government of India, and that, throughout a long and difficult period, that officer had been animated with a single desire to discharge his duty zealously and faithfully. The Government of India stated that Sir Richard Meade's career in India had been that of a zealous and upright public servant; that they retained an entire and unshaken confidence in his integrity and honour; and that they considered the imputations of corrupt conduct brought against him in the articles in question to be without foundation. I desire to add that Sir Richard Meade was personally anxious that legal proceedings should be instituted in order to give him the opportunity of denying, on oath in the witness-box, the charges

1373
made against him, and the Government of India supported this wish. I, however, considered that this course would be attended with no advantage, unless I was prepared to produce in Court the confidential papers connected with the transactions called in question; and, as I have stated on former occasions, I do not think that this would, at the present time, be for the benefit of the public service. I also considered that this course was wholly unnecessary for the vindication of Sir Richard Meade's character; and I caused an intimation to that effect to be sent to that officer, with an expression of my entire concurrence in the opinion recorded by the Government of India as to his public services and personal integrity. I have reason to believe that Sir Richard Meade is quite satisfied with the action thus taken; but I am glad to have the opportunity of making this statement.
MR. ONSLOWasked the noble Lord whether the Government of India could not publish their Report in The Calcutta Gazette, in order that the public of India might see that the Government had gone into the matter, and the conclusion at which they had arrived?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTLNGTON: No, Sir; that course would be inconvenient, as the Report that was sent home contained confidential papers which it is not desirable to publish.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—THE MEATH ELECTION—MR. DAVITT.
MR. R. POWER: I would wish to ask the Prime Minister, If it is true that Michael Davitt, the founder of the Land League, at present in Portland Prison, has been returned unopposed for the county of Meath; and, if so, have the Government allowed the information to be conveyed to him?
MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware whether any official information has been conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who, I believe, will be in his place in an hour or two. I have received no official information on the subject.

THE COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE—THE NEGOTIATIONS.
MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
1374
Whether he is in a position to state what is the condition of the negotiations at present between England and France with respect to a Commercial Treaty?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I hope I may be able in a day or two to say something on this subject. All I can say now is that the negotiations are continued, and that Lord Lyons has received a communication from the French Government in the course of to-day.

ARMY ORGANIZATION—CHANGES OF UNIFORM.
SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can now say what allowance will be made to officers of Militia whose uniform has been changed to the Highland or trews dress?
MR. CHILDERS: Yes Sir; regiments changing to or from kilts or trews will be treated like those changing to or from rifle uniform.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ORDER OF BUSINESS.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to put a Question with regard to the course of Business; and it is after what hour the second Order—the adjourned debate on Business of the House (Putting the Question)—will not be taken?
MR. GLADSTONE: I had purposed giving an engagement not to bring it on after half-past 10; but, looking at the nature of the Votes to be taken in Supply, I think, upon the whole, it is hardly worth while to trouble the House by keeping the Order on the Paper, and I will put it off till to-morrow.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, there would be a discussion on going into Committee on the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill; and it was, therefore, desirable that the Order should come on at a time when the subject could be properly discussed.
MB. GLADSTONEsaid, that, without promising that the Bill should be put down as the first Order, he might give a general assurance that the Motion to go into Committee should not be made at an inconvenient hour for any discussion that was likely to arise.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

EXTRAORDINARY NAVAL, MILITARY, AND POLICE EXPENDITURE (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  EARL PERCYrose to call attention to, the Extraordinary Naval, Military, and Police Expenditure which is being incurred in Ireland; and to move for a Return of all sums chargeable on the Estimates connected with the attempt to preserve Life and Property in that country. The noble Earl said, he did not intend to make any attack on the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The Government had given them, and were about to give them, so many opportunities of discussing the affairs of Ireland that he thought it was unnecessary for him to delay the Votes in Supply by raising an Irish discussion. But, at the same time, he considered it was most important that the country should be informed of the expense to which it had been put, and it was for this reason that he ventured to interpose between the House and Supply. With the view of laying a foundation for his Motion, and not from any purpose of attacking the Government, he wished to point out to the House that the outrages in Ireland, which, unfortunately, had for a long time been going on in that country, had been increasing from the month of May, 1880, down to the present time, until, after the year and a-half or two years that had elapsed, they had reached the enormous number of 6,668. Now, in order to meet this disastrous state of affairs it had been necessary to largely increase the Forces of the Crown; and he had endeavoured to ascertain what was the comparative number of the Army in Ireland in 1880 and at the present time. The result was that he found that in February, 1880, there were 16,540 troops of all arms in Ireland; now there were no less than 34,469, or considerably more than double the previous number. In addition to them there had been
  1376
  movements of Her Majesty's ships, involving a considerable expenditure; and there had also been a large increase of the Royal Constabulary, he believed, to the extent of from something like 11,000 men to 13,000 or 15,000; also, of course, involving a considerable charge. Now, all these charges for troops, and ships, and police, engaged in the enforcement of the coercive policy of the Government came out of the Consolidated Fund; so that the people of the United Kingdom—the people of England and Scotland, as well as the Irish themselves—had to contribute towards the cost, although the people of England and Scotland—unless it was imagined that the Government were, to some extent, responsible, and that they had returned the present Ministry to power—were in no way responsible for the large increase of expenditure. He thought, therefore, they should know accurately what the expenses of the operations in Ireland really were, and that they should be separated from the bulk of the other items under the same head in the Estimates, and that they should have laid before them a full statement of the charges which had thus been incurred. Those charges included the pay of the 17,000 men who had been added to the normal number of the Army, their allowances, rations, car-hire, railway fares, all the expenses incident to the constant movement of a considerable body of troops, the immense wear and tear of the material, and the cost of the ammunition expended. But it was not only under the head of the outrages which appeared in the Return lately laid on the Table that that large expenditure had been incurred. For a long time back it had been impossible in numerous cases to enforce the action of the law without the aid of extraordinary means, and those extraordinary means all entailed additional cost. He might quote many instances of that kind; but he would take one or two as samples to show what was the exact point that he wished to have made clear, and the precise species of charges as to which he sought information. At a place called Edenderry, a case occurred in which it was necessary to recover a judgment for one year's rent by seizure. The amount of the rent was £101. The civil charges for recovering that amount of rent, including the

  1377
  solicitors', sheriffs', bailiffs', and other charges, was £20 13 s. 1d. To recover a sum of £121 and some odd shillings, and to enforce the seizure, a force was sent consisting of 35 men and one officer of the 47th. Regiment, 28 men of the Irish Constabulary, and a Resident Magistrate. Thus, in order to get payment of £121, the country had been put to expense for the pay of that force of troops and constabulary. [An hon. MEMBER: Not for the pay.] An officer's allowance was 15 s. per diem. Then there were items for soldiers' billets, cars, a cart, and other things, making, exclusive of the pay of the men, to which objection had been taken, the total cost to the country of £53 10 s. In another instance a party of Hussars, 35 men and three officers, were sent, and, after a few days of obstruction of a different character to that which the House was accustomed, the population rose to defeat the execution of the law. Trees were cut down and thrown across the road, bridges were broken down, roads were torn up, and every impediment was put in the way of the party, upon which additional troops were sent down, consisting of 120 men of the Rifle Brigade, 15 of the Royal Engineers, 30 of the Irish Constabulary, and a Resident Magistrate, and that force was on the ground 13 or 14 days. What was the expense of moving considerable bodies of men and keeping them in the country away from their stations? This had been going on for the last two or three years all over Ireland, and the cost of cars alone, in the particular instance he had quoted, was stated to have been £60 per week. He did not desire to trespass upon the patience of the House; but he desired the Government to lay upon the Table a distinct statement, so that they could all comprehend what was the difference between the ordinary expenditure and that which had been made necessary by the movement of these bodies of troops and of ships, by the increase and constant employment of the Royal Constabulary. The country would then be aware what it was that Englishmen and Scotchmen had to pay for the satisfaction of enjoying the blessed privilege of Liberal rule as shown forth in Ireland.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words
  1378
  "there be laid before this House a Return of all sums chargeable on the Estimates connected with the attempt to preserve Life and Property in that country,"—(Earl Percy,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHILDERSintervened at this early stage of the debate, not with the view of speaking on the general question, but because he thought it might be as well that he should state, in reply to the noble Lord, what had been the increase of military expenditure caused by the condition of affairs in Ireland. The extraordinary exaggerations which had appeared in the Press, and, he was sorry to say, in "another place," when at one time the strength of the military force in Ireland was stated, on the highest authority among those who were not Members of the Government, at 61,000 men, and similar statements which had been made elsewhere during the last few weeks, required that some authentic statement should be made on tins subject. He would, therefore, at once give an accurate statement of the number of troops generally stationed in Ireland, and also the present number. The average strength of the forces of all arms—Cavalry, Infantry, Artillery, Engineers, and other corps—since the year 1872 was above 22,000 men. It had been in some years as high as 24,000 or 26,000 men, and as low as 21,000, and he might put the average at 22,000, or perhaps 23,000. At the time when the Government came into Office the establishment was somewhat below its normal strength, in consequence of a good many regiments having been recently abroad; but it then, nevertheless, exceeded 20,000 men, and during the last few months it had averaged from 28,000 to 29,000, so that the excess above the average amounted to about 7,000, including a battalion of Marines about 940 strong. The highest number of troops which the present Government had maintained in Ireland was 30,040 men, the number now there. That was very different from the enormous figures of 60,000 and 61,000 men, which had been stated on authority, but the ground of which he had in vain endeavoured to ascertain.
  EARL PERCYasked what was the number of troops when the Government came into Office?
  MR. CHILDERS: It was a little below the average in consequence of the reasons I have given, not being more than 20,460. With respect to the increased cost of the Army in Ireland during this financial year, it was extremely difficult to be accurate, because it was spread over a great number of items which did not reach the War Office for many months, and then had to be carefully analyzed; but he had seen that day the two officials of the War Office most able to give a good opinion as to these expenses, and had gone carefully into them. They had neither increased or decreased the garrison of the United Kingdom; so that the Vote for Pay was not increased. But there had been entailed on the Government certain extra expenditure in connection with transport, billetting, and special allowances; and, after the most careful inquiry, he thought he might state that, at the outside, the increased charge for the year would not exceed £30,000, and he should not wonder if it turned out to be as low as £25,000. But £30,000 was the fullest charge for 1881–2. He hoped he had answered the Question of the noble Lord. That £30,000 they had been enabled to find out of casual savings on ordinary Votes, and they would not be compelled to come to Parliament for any Supplementary Vote on that account. With regard to the Navy, there were three items of principal expenditure as to which no Vote would be asked for from Parliament, they having also been met out of the amount saved from the aggregate Estimates. There would be a small charge on account of the Marines of £6,000 or so. The charge for transport would be probably about £5,000, and there would be some extra cost in connection with the coaling of gunboats and other vessels on the coast of Ireland. No additional vessel, however, had been put in commission, and the total additional charge on account of the Navy would not exceed £20,000. Thus he was able to inform the House that from the best means of information which they possessed at the present time the total special charges for the Army and Navy in connection with the recent movements in Ireland would probably be under £50,000, the whole of which would be met out of the ordinary Votes of Parliament.
  MR. RYLANDSexpressed his satisfaction at the statement of the Secretary of State for War. He agreed with the noble Lord that their extraordinary expenditure on account of Ireland ought properly to be brought under the notice of Parliament. He considered it was one of those services of expenditure which, unless the House very carefully investigated it, was very likely to become a very serious charge upon the Exchequer. He gathered from the noble Lord's statement that he considered the Government were, in an especial degree, responsible for this expenditure. He himself did not believe that if a Conservative Government had been in power it would have been placed at any possible advantage in the government of Ireland, although he admitted that the country had to pay very large charges, which must be deplored. He would like to know what the noble Lord wished. Did he wish that the Government should not incur any police charge to assist in the collection of rents in Ireland? He sympathized, to some extent, with what appeared to be the feeling of the noble Lord, that where landowners had, by the course which they had taken for generations in Ireland, exacted from tenants rents in excess of what could justly be paid, the people of this country ought not to be placed under heavy charges for the use of the police and other powers in enforcing the payment of those rents. They might suppose that the great difficulty the Government experienced arose from the fact that the rents in Ireland had been very largely in excess of just rents; and the misfortune of the case was that a very large amount of the arrears which now existed were arrears of rent which had accumulated in consequence of the tenants having been required from year to year to pay larger sums than they were able. If a tenant paid £100 a-year rental, that £100 represented £25 a-year more than the amount the tenant would justly have been called upon to pay. If during the last 10 years he had paid his rent with tolerable regularity, he must have overpaid rent to the extent of £250. He might be two years in arrears and owe the landlord £200, and they were called upon to put the whole engine of the State into operation in order to make these tenants pay their arrears of rack rent. He hoped the Government would

  1381
  give the Return asked for, because the country wanted to see what it was paying in order to enforce the rights of the landlords in Ireland. He altogether deplored the fact that they were spending these enormous sums on police action in Ireland. He was delighted to find that the military expenditure was so much less than the public had been led to expect from the number of soldiers required in Ireland. There could be no doubt whatever that they were paying a very large additional sum and an increasing sum in police charges. He had always had these feelings, and he ventured to state it in the debate on the Address 12 months ago. He had always had the fear that by giving extraordinary powers to the Government, Dublin Castle would not be fully disposed to put in force the ordinary powers of the Government. He had seen increasing crime and increasing outrage, the whole state of society disarranged, and he had seen that during the whole period that this dreadful state of affairs existed the police seemed to have been incapable. In reference to the ordinary powers of Government, the police and Dublin Castle officials had, to a great extent, failed. They heard of outrages and frightful murders; but they almost always saw the statement appended that there was no clue to the perpetrators. The police did not track and get hold of the criminals. All they could do was to seize some farmer who had nothing to do with any outrage, and put him in prison as a "suspect." He hoped the discussion in that House upon those Votes would induce greater energy on the part of the authorities of Ireland to carry out the power rested in them under the ordinary law. He trusted they would trust more to ordinary law and less to extraordinary powers in putting down these outrages. At all events, the country had a right to know the cost; and he thought they ought fairly to look at the case with a view to prevent any lavish or undue expenditure without attaining the desired result.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that last year a new system of accounts was adopted, with the approval of the Public Accounts Committee, under which the Army and Navy Departments had power given to them to spend, in addition to "Appropriations in Aid," certain sums, known as "Extra Receipts," which were
  1382
  formerly paid into the Exchequer. He wished to know whether the new scheme had come into force, and whether these "Extra Receipts" had been appropriated; and, if so, whether that did not account for the fact that no further sums would be required?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the change did not take effect until the 1st of April next, so that no use could be made of these sums.
  MR. GORSTwished he could believe that the state of things was of that couleur de rose complexion which the right hon. Gentlemen had depicted. He thought that a portion of the expenditure incurred in Ireland must have come under some other heads than those with which the right hon. Gentleman had to deal. What did the moving about of the police cost?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had nothing to do with the police.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he was aware of that; but, practically, the police and the military were employed together. Wherever the police went, a force of military accompanied them to protect them. Although the large sum of £28,000 was set down in the Estimates for the travelling expenses of the Irish Constabulary, it was now necessary to ask for £32,000, including such items as car hire, train fare, mileage allowance, marching money, &c.; so that the whole cost amounted to the gross sum of £60,000 odd. Besides that, there was an item for transport service, which consisted of the purchase of horses, cars, harness, forage, livery, &c, and which amounted to £14,174. Under these circumstances, it was extraordinary that the cost of moving about the soldiers should be only £30,000. He wished to know the cost of maintaining the extra regiments in Ireland? It was obvious that if they had put 10,000 extra troops in Ireland, if Ireland were peaceable they could reduce the strength of the forces by that amount.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he did not think that the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to the Question of the noble Lord would be satisfactory either to the House or the country. The right hon. Gentleman put the whole increase of cost this year down at £50,000; but what they wanted to ascertain was how much was the cost this year for the troops now in Ireland,

  1383
  and how much it had been in former years?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that there were 7,000 additional troops in Ireland; but then, of course, there were 7,000 less in Great Britain.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) came into Office there were 20,400 soldiers in Ireland, and there were now upwards of 30,000, and only a very short time ago five fresh regiments were sent to Ireland. There were two regiments sent, one from Gosport and another from Portsmouth, and two battalions of Guards; and he thought there was another regiment sent from Dover—the 31st Regiment—to Ireland. ["Three regiments!"] He understood there were five fresh battalions sent about a month or six weeks ago. He might ask, if Ireland was so quiet as the Government represented it to be, why these extra regiments were sent over there? Was it a fact or not that there was in Ireland a regiment whose average of service was not over 10 months, that the troops could not be trusted to do duty, and therefore a regiment with older men was required to take its place? He understood that while the Secretary of State for War was getting rid of the old soldiers out of every regiment, he had to ask for more troops from this country, because the age of the men in Ireland rendered them unfit for the work they had to perform. It was particularly important now, when the short-service system was actually on its trial, and when they ought to know everything with regard to that system, and where it appeared to fail, and had not carried out the object of the Secretary of State for War, that the House should have an explicit statement whether what he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had stated was true or not. He would, therefore, again urge that the right hon. Gentleman, in any Returns that might be made, would state the ages of the men serving in Ireland, the average length of time which they had served, and whether it was a fact that there were one or more regiments in that country whose actual service was not more than 10 months?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he would like to hear the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite on the proposal of the hon. and learned Member
  1384
  for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) to reduce the Army by 10,000 men. The fact was, that they were obliged to keep on foot a certain military establishment to meet emergencies that might arise abroad; and it did not make any material difference whether the regiments of which it consisted were distributed about England and Scotland, or were sent to Ireland. It was unnecessary for him, he thought, to say anything further as to Army and Navy expenditure. With respect to Civil expenditure, he could but reiterate what had been stated by his right hon. Friend, that it was at present impossible to give an accurate Return of that special expenditure until the close of the financial year, because the Government had not the materials for doing so. If the noble Earl (Earl Percy) referred to the original Estimates of last year, he would see that the only item relating to Ireland showing any material increase was the Vote for the Constabulary. That Vote showed an increase over the average of the last six years of about £ 12,000 a-year. It would appear that the increase on the original Estimates amounted to about £59,000, of which about £12,000 was repayable by the counties for extra forces supplied, giving an increase of a little less than £40,000. He was sorry to say that in the Estimates which they would shortly have to consider, there would be a further provision necessary of £116,000. A small portion of that would be repayable by the counties; but he thought it would be a perfectly fair Estimate to set down the total increase in the cost of the Constabulary, owing to the present condition of Ireland, at nearly £140,000. To that they might add the increased charge of Resident Magistrates, £5,000; Law Charges, £19,000; Chief Secretary's Office, £900. To this also they might add the expenses of the Land Act, which was intended to remove the permanent causes which led to the present state of Ireland, and that might be put at £35,000. Adding all the sums together, they came to about £200,000 of Civil expenditure occasioned by the present state of Ireland.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he did not think that the answer of the Government would be complete unless they stated what was the whole difference in the Expenditure caused by the present state of things in Ireland. Parliament should

  1385
  look at its Expenditure with great jealousy. He was not much inclined to compliment the Secretary of State for War on the complacency with which he had spoken of the connection of his Department with the state of Ireland. When, as was the case this year, the total Army Estimates were £16,500,000, it would be an extraordinary thing if the transport of a few regiments to Ireland could not be carried out without an extra charge coming upon the Estimates. He wished to point out that during the present Parliament the National Expenditure had been enormous, and now amounted to £85,000,000.
  COLONEL BARNE, referring to the question of putting down outrages in Ireland, observed that in India some time ago the Natives had a bad habit of getting upon the railway trucks when in motion, and rolling off some of the bales of cotton and stealing them. The Government of India stopped this practice very quickly by fining every Native within a certain distance of the place where each offence was committed. Why could not the same policy be carried out in Ireland? He had heard it suggested by some persons, though he did not suggest it himself, that the outrages might be stopped with the greatest ease by hanging the three nearest priests. He did not advocate that system; but, at the same time, everyone knew that every person within a certain distance of the place where an outrage was committed knew well enough who had committed the crime. There was an old saying, "that the receiver was worse than the thief;'' and if the inhabitants around a certain district knew who the offenders were and did not interfere, he maintained that they were just as bad as the offenders themselves, and worthy of every punishment. If the Government would adopt the system of making every householder within a certain distance of the place where an outrage was committed pay, according to his rating, a certain sum for each offence, every man would be turned into a sort of special constable, and a stop would soon be put to the outrages.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had listened with some attention and interest to the recital of the experiences of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken. A short time ago The Pioneer, a leading newspaper in India,
  1386
  expressed its great regret that amongst a very large portion of the population of India their existed a feeling of absolute loathing against English officials. It was very probable that if the hon. and gallant Member was an English official in India, they had some clue to the cause of the feeling he (Mr. O'Donnell) had mentioned. He did not think, however, that it would at all tend to exalt the dignity of that House or of the country to devote too much attention to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member. There was a feature in this debate to which he had listened with some pleasure, and that feature was supplied in the observations of some hon. Members sitting on the opposite side of the House. Though he was not in the habit of complimenting hon. Members opposite on their attachment to liberty, he certainly heard with very great pleasure the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), who appeared on that occasion to have indulged in a lucid interval, and to have raised his voice on behalf of the principles of humanity, of which he was so distinguished an exponent under the late Cabinet. That hon. Member, in referring to the expenses of the military occupation of Ireland, laid great stress upon the fact that those expenses were largely required to extort from the peasantry the hopeless arrears of unreduced rents which lay upon the country since the Famine period. He (Mr. O'Donnell) did not expect that his views would have the slightest weight with Her Majesty's Government; but he did trust that expressions of such true and sturdy supporters of the Government as the hon.-Member for Burnley would have some weight with the Government. The thing which was depriving the Land Act of all chance of success, which was driving the people into desperation, and causing the Estimates to mount up, was the mass of arrears of unreduced rents. It was perfectly useless to expect people to go into the Land Court; it was perfectly hopeless to expect any diminution of the present necessity for a military occupation of Ireland, so long as, at least, 100,000 of the Irish tenants remained burdened with arrears of rent which could be legally extorted from them, but who were utterly unable to pay. He was not sure that a great deal of what had been done by Her Majesty's

  1387
  Government in Ireland might not require to be condoned under a Bill of Indemnity. He was sure there was no Bill of Indemnity which would be so readily passed by the majority of that House as one pardoning and absolving the Government if they refused to grant military assistance for the extortion of arrears of rent, except in cases where it was clearly proved to them that a fair and just offer had been made by the landlord to the tenant before the landlord's application for the military assistance. The military might be demanded, say, by Mr. Bence Jones, for the extortion of arrears of rent which, in the Land Court, might be cut down from £150 to £96. In prosperous years many tenants were only able to pay their rents at the expense of much misery. The recent exceptional distress put many people out of the capacity to pay even fair rents, and put all tenants out of their capacity to pay unfair rents; and yet it was the arrears of those unpayable rents which caused the military expenditure that was now astonishing the House. He did not believe there were 5 per cent of the people of Ireland who would countenance any interference with the operation of the Land Act if these arrears were dealt with. But it was impossible for the Land Act to have fair play, or for the reductions of rent to do any good to the people, until something was done to prevent the landlords evicting the people for the non-payment of arrears. They were nullifying the Act by these proceedings. They would have a very small military and police bill to pay for Ireland if they would deal with the arrears of unfair rents. If ever a Government were justified in taking steps of a humanitarian character, even if these involved the necessity for a Bill of Indemnity, it was the existing Government in the present state of Ireland. The Irish Members would not try to continue the present disastrous situation of affairs by offering opposition to any measure which would give those tenants breathing time, and which would thus enable the Land Act to have a fair chance, and the country to return to Constitutional government.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it was very seldem that he had been able so entirely to agree with the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken as he did now. He felt bound
  1388
  to bear his testimony to the truth of the observations they had just listened to from the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The condition of things in Ireland was so bad that it was impossible to exaggerate it; and he could not avoid expressing his belief that, unless some great departure was taken to remedy the present state of things, occurrences would follow that would be a stain, not only upon the Government, but upon the country itself. No doubt there was great blame attaching to both sides. There had been stimulants applied to the Irish people not to pay their rents—not even to pay fair rents; but that which was the pressing matter now was the impossibility of their paying arrears of rent. In the part of the country where he lived there were at this moment numbers of people encamped on the hillside, who had been turned out nearly naked in the cold and wet, to seek such shelter as they could get from the winds of heaven, because they could not, even if they gave their skins and their bones, pay their arrears of rent. These were the people whom Her Majesty's troops were engaged in evicting. It was all very well to talk about enforcing the law and the duties of statesmanship; but there were considerations far beyond these, and that was, how to deal with a starving and hopeless people. When he heard those questions as to whether troops were to protect the police and the police were to perform the civil duties connected with evicting people from their homes who had nothing on their backs and nothing in their stomachs, he could not but feel that the times were out of joint, and that there was something wrong with the government of the country. He had heard with great distress that evening the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government say that he would not, under any circumstances, contemplate any Bill dealing with an amendment of the present Land Act.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Oh, no.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he was delighted to hear it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My words were these. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. M'Coan) asked me whether I was prepared to recommend that a certain thing should be done by Order in Council or otherwise, and I said I had no power by Orders in Council, and, with regard to legislation,

  1389
  I was not able to contract any engagements.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYapologized to the right hon. Gentleman; but he was glad he had fallen into the error, because the statement of the right hon. Gentleman would diffuse a ray of light on that unhappy country. He trusted the Government and the House would get into their minds and hearts this truth—that what was at the bottom of the difficulty now was the impossibility of the people paying the arrears of rent; and unless that fact was dealt with there was a probability that, in the future, they would see nothing better, but rather something worse, in the condition of the country.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILrose simply to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury. They had been enabled to give to the House the gross total of the Army and Navy expenditure, amounting, as he understood, to £50,000; and the Secretary to the Treasury had told the House that the expenditure of the Civil Service Estimates for the Constabulary and for other items was something like £200,000, making a total in all of £250,000. He wished simply to suggest to the Government that as the Gentlemen he had referred to must have had the same figures upon which they had gone, that they should grant the last portion of the Motion, and allow a Re-turn to be made. The House was now acquainted with the grand total, and all they now wanted was the items. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would kindly consult together, he had no doubt that a satisfactory Return might be put before the House.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he did not think that the Ashantee speech to which they had listened from the hon. and gallant Member for East Suffolk (Colonel Barne) was likely to receive any attention from the Government. That hon. and gallant Member had peculiar opinions about how to make peace in Ireland. The kind of operations suggested by the hon. and gallant Member had been already tried in Ireland, and had proved a failure. The hanging and banishment of priests had been tried; and out of that long struggle the priests had come
  1390
  victorious, Suppose the system of fines which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had suggested were adopted, where would the money come from? But there was a fund out of which such fines could be taken if it were possible to impose them—they could be taken out of the rents of the landlords. That was the only fund the Irish tenants had; but henceforward they intended to support themselves and their families fairly and comfortably out of the fruits of their own industry, and to let all other claims and considerations come afterwards; and if they were forced to pay a mulct of this kind, unquestionably they would take it out of the moneys which the landlords would perhaps otherwise receive. He begged leave to tell the hon. and gallant hangman—[Cries of "Order! "and "Withdraw!"]—he begged leave to tell the hon. and gallant Member that his proposition breathed a spirit of brutality, and not the spirit of the age, and that the day was past when such an idea could be revived in Ireland.
  MR. CHILDERS: I hope the hon. Member will withdraw that expression.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I withdraw the expression.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) whether the Government had not sent five additional regiments to Ireland, and also what was the average length of service of the troops sent to that country. He was unable to give any information as to the latter Question, because he had not brought the particulars down with him; but he could give the figures as to the former. The number of Infantry on the 1st of December was 20,800, and the number of Infantry at the present time was 21,300, so that there had been a total increase in three months of 500 men. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil) had asked for details of the Army expenditure, on the ground of his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury having asked for certain sums for Civil expenditure; but he was afraid that it would be impossible for him to comply with that request at present. What he had done was to consult the gentlemen in the War Office who always watched this class of expenditure, and they had

  1391
  given him the best Estimate in. their power to the end of the year, naming £30,000. He thought he might undertake to say for himself and his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury that when the Session was further advanced they would do their best to give any further information in their possession.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not rise with the object of carrying on the discussion respecting the Irish policy of the Government, as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had placed an early day at the disposal of the House for the consideration of that question. He merely wished to point out what might be an explanation of the apparent inconsistency between the figures named by his noble Friend the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) and those of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with regard to the Irish establishment at the time the present Government came into Office. The noble Lord had stated the figures at 16,500, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War at something like 20,000 in round figures. The explanation might be sought in the fact that shortly before the late Government vacated Office a considerable reinforcement of the troops in Ireland took place. Amongst other regiments, the 57th Regiment arrived from Natal and went to Ireland, and its strength was computed at something like 1,000 men or over. One or two other regiments relieved the garrison in Ireland at about the same time. Probably the figures quoted by his noble Friend were correct for November or December, 1879, if not for the February of the following year.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had not the privilege of listening to the early part of the debate, and therefore did. not intend to offer any observations upon what transpired in his absence. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) seemed to have understood the Prime Minister to speak hopefully of the future condition of Ireland; but he understood the right hon. Gentleman differently. The Prime Minister had such a happy faculty of speaking in such a way that it was impossible to understand clearly what he intended to convey; and perhaps he would get up and tell the House precisely what his intentions were with regard to the question of arrears.
  1392
  He did not at all share the view of the hon. Member for Galway that the observations of the Prime Minister would cast a ray of hope over Ireland which would at some time be realized. He much feared that the ray of hope would be of little practical value. With regard to the question of arrears, it was well known that the unfortunate tenants of Ireland were helplessly in debt to their landlords, and for that reason they were evicted from their holdings. There was a very curious thing about those evictions. The Prime Minister sent his son, the Member for Leeds, to get some knowledge and information in Ireland, and it was a very curious thing that for that purpose the position which the right hon. Gentleman selected for him was that of superintending the evictions of poor people who had no means of paying their rent. The right hon. Gentleman naturally desired to do the best he could for that pert young hopeful of his; and, no doubt, with the intention of getting him a permanent situation in the Civil Service, he deputed him to see a lot of poor people thrown out on the country-side without shelter or the means of getting a living. Now, the right hon. Gentleman had himself estimated that an eviction was equal to a sentence of death; and therefore he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he tried to get the reversion of the post now held by Marwood for the Member for Leeds, it would be a suitable position for him.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The observations just made by the hon. Member for Cavan are hardly worthy even of him. I heard him call my son, the Member for Leeds, a "young hopeful." If I had seen the Member for Leeds in his place I should have left it to him to show the hon. Member whether he was a young hopeful or not; but, in the meantime, I may observe to the hon. Gentleman for his information that the ordinary practice of the older Members in this House—I may say the uniform practice—has been to afford kindly welcome to every young Member. Moreover, I must say I have never been able to trace in the case of the reception of any young man in this House any distinction between one side of the House and the other in regard to the manner of that reception, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman. And perhaps it will be the prin-

  1393
  cipal distinction that his Parliamentary career will confer that he has broken that tradition, and has chosen to speak of a young Member of this House, in the absence of that Member, as a "young hopeful." With regard to the other allusion which the hon. Member has made, and which is brutal in its character, I shall take no notice of it whatever, except to say that I do not believe there is one man among the Members who sit round the hon. Gentleman, and generally vote and speak with him, that will rise in his place to sustain or to apologize for that reference. I leave it to the hon. Gentleman himself to judge whether, after what has taken place, he will rise in his place and express his regret for the words that fell from him. It is a matter, perhaps, of interest and concern to himself, whatever it may be to anybody else. But the hon. Gentleman also said that the hon. Member for Leeds had gone into a certain part of Ireland to superintend evictions. With regard to that statement I can only say that it is entirely without foundation; there is not the slightest foundation for it—the Member for Leeds had no official character or function whatever. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) referred to a point in the statistics which, I think, deserves perhaps a little further analysis. In February, 1880, the number of Infantry in Ireland was, in round numbers, 20,500, which was about the average for that season of the year.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: What I said was, that the figures of the noble Earl (Earl Percy) and the Secretary of State for War would be approximately right if, instead of February, 1880, he went back to November or the Summer of 1879.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In that case, the observation merely shows that the noble Earl quoted for February—having no official sources of information at his command—figures which would have been true at a former period. Yes; but it would only have been accidentally true at a former period, because, owing to the drain for South Africa, the regiments had been accidentally reduced. In considering what is the excessive number of troops in Ireland, the question is, what is the ordinary number? I have a list of figures showing the numbers in February for several years,
  1394
  and 20,500 is the average. The figures ran from 21,000 to 22,000, and as high as 23,000 and 24,000.
  EARL PERCY: I hope the House will not think I intended to mislead it. I gave the best figures I could.
  MR. RICHARDSON, referring to the allusion of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), said, he was glad that the hon. Member for Leeds, in his journeyings through Ireland, had taken the trouble and the pains to see what Irish evictions really were. He (Mr. Bichardson) would not attempt to apologize for the hon. Member for Cavan, as those around him had not done so; but he might inform the House that before he (Mr. Richardson) had left Ireland to be present at the opening of Parliament, he had had a conversation with a former schoolmaster of the hon. Member, who had hoped the House would not be too hard upon his pupil, because he could not help troubling the House sometimes, as in his youth he had always been a very naughty and troublesome little boy.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFconsidered the House had not been fairly treated in having Supplementary Estimates of so large an amount brought forward at so early a period of the Session.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 244; Noes 13: Majority 231.—(Div. List, No. 21.)

THE COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE—THE NEGOTIATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDwished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any additional information with reference to the Commercial Treaty with France?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Since I gave an answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) early this evening, I have received a communication from the French Government. I do not think it would be desirable for me to state its terms to the House; but I may say that it affords a prospect of as satisfactory an arrangement as is possible under the circumstances.

STATE OF IRELAND—POLICE PROTECTION FOR CARETAKERS.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  MR. CHAPLINrose to call attention to the threatened withdrawal by the Government of police protection from caretakers placed in charge of vacant farms by the agents of the Property Defence Association in Ireland. A few days ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it were correct, as stated in The Times, that the Government intended to withdraw the protection of the police from caretakers who had been placed on vacant farms in Ireland by the Association? The right hon. Gentleman returned an answer which he (Mr. Chaplin) confessed he was unable at the time clearly to understand, and, therefore, he intimated his intention of repeating it. As the right hon. Gentleman had now come back from Ireland, he trusted some information would be given to the House on this subject, which appeared to be assuming a somewhat serious aspect. The Association was intended to assist the Government in its conflict with the Land League, by providing persons to take up vacant farms, and furnishing labour where, through intimidation, it could not be procured in the districts; and it was obvious that if its work was to have any beneficial effect, its agents ought to have the protection of the Government when their lives wore in danger. But he was now informed that there had recently been cases where application had been made to the Government for protection, life and property being endangered, and that the Government had replied protection could not be counted on, the time having arrived when these people must arm themselves for their own defence. He should like to know if that was correct; whether it was to be understood for the future that, in the work of the Property Defence Association, when the lives of persons in their employment were endangered, it was expected by the Government that armed men should be engaged by the Association where the Government were unwilling to afford protection; or whether the Government were still prepared to give security and protection to life and property in Ireland? He hoped the House would receive assurances from
  1396
  the Government that they were both able and willing to give the latter.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he understood the Question to be, whether the Government intend to send police to give personal protection to all caretakers? They could not undertake to give protection in every case in which it was asked for. The Government must use their own discretion, and in those cases where they considered that without police protection there would be danger to life and property it was their duty to give it. But the applications made to the Government seemed to him to infer that, as a matter of course, police should be sent to be by the side of every caretaker. That was an absolute impossibility, and no Government could undertake it, neither could he imagine that any person would really ask it. It was by no means necessary that there should be in all cases caretakers present. It also ought to be borne in mind that the protection afforded was far greater than had ever been given by any Government, and in some cases the protection thus given had been abused, as in the case where a body of men were lodged in a miserable hut that the landlord would not put in repair, while the caretaker was given to habits of drunkenness. The Government were, therefore, bound to exercise some care. But it must be borne in mind that the Government had a right to expect individuals to do something for themselves. In one instance protection was asked when the head of the house was an able-bodied man, and there were three other able-bodied men on the premises. Such a request, he thought, was unreasonable; though the Government could not divest themselves of the responsibility of protecting property, and especially life. The Government must decide the cases in which they should send police to reside at a house or farm, and, generally speaking, they thought that protection would be best given by patrol, and by having the police so arranged that they might be called upon at any moment. He was asked whether he thought caretakers would be at liberty to defend themselves. Undoubtedly, they were at liberty to defend themselves, and he considered that the Government had a right to expect that they would to some extent do so. He did not think any Government could re-

  1397
  lieve persons in that situation from doing something for their own protection.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had not quite answered one of his Questions, and, as the matter was an important one, he must repeat it. Would it be with the sanction and encouragement of the Government, that the Property Defence Association should employ armed bodies of their own for the purpose of giving protection and security to life and property in cases where the Government might be unable or unwilling to afford it?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that he understood the Property Defence Association was in the same position as any ordinary member of society. If they or their servants were attacked, they had a right to defend themselves, and they would themselves have to judge when force should be exercised in so defending themselves. His hon. Friend asked whether the Government would sanction such a proceeding. Of course they would do so, just in the same way as any Government would sanction the same course either in England or elsewhere.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had asked the Question (Mr. Chaplin) appeared to have lost sight of one class of persons who were greatly affected by the present state of affairs. The persons most needing protection were the small tenant farmers, who in all cases had been the victims of outrage, and had no sympathy with the perpetrators of outrage. The only system by which they could be protected would be by an efficient system of patrolling, which could not be carried out if large bodies of police were engaged, as at present, in giving personal protection. He knew many police stations which had been denuded of their proper complement of police, so that patrolling duty had been rendered impossible, and thus many small tenants had not got the protection that they really needed. He sincerely hoped that Her Majesty's Government would keep to their resolution of not sending police upon personal protection duty. He held that if it was necessary to send armed forces to protect the civil powers, troops instead of police should be employed, as the police had other duties, and would most serviceably be employed on patrol.
  MR. J. LOWTHERagreed that it was quite impossible to take exception to what the Government had laid down, that they must be the judges of the reasonableness of requests for protection. It was quite out of the question to send police to every person who was unduly alarmed. But the right hon. Gentleman would recognize that the Government assumed a great responsibility in every case where they refused protection. They ought to satisfy themselves that the request was unreasonable. Of course, in cases where such protection had been abused, the Government would be quite right in discontinuing it; but it would be another thing if they refused to grant protection on the ground of want of forces, and other considerations would arise. Was there such a deficiency of force?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman's experience of Ireland would show him that there must be a limit to the number of men who could be employed, and it would be the business of the Government to employ that number of men in the best way possible. He could only repeat what he said before, that they could not make it a rule to give protection in every case where it was asked for. They would consider each case where an adequate protection could be given without individual soldiers or policemen being sent.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it was evident that the right hon. Gentleman contemplated refusing applications for police protection which he would comply with if lie had sufficient men at his disposal. That was entirely a different question from the refusal to give protection, because, in the opinion of the Government, that protection was not required. If the right hon. Gentleman had occasion to refuse such protection to individuals, after he had become satisfied that it was required, and based his refusal on the inability of the Government to confer it, he would incur the most serious responsibility. The position he should assume would be to come to the House and ask for further means——
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the great majority of the demands made upon us are for the protection of property, and not for the protection of life.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would go further and say that the fundamental duty of any Government was to protect property as well as life; and, if the forces at the disposal of a Government were not adequate for the protection of both property and life, it was their duty to go to Parliament and ask that the means at their disposal might be supplemented. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to say that he would be fully prepared to afford encouragement to the Property Defence Association.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I really must ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what he means by encouragement. I did not use the word encouragement.
  MR. WARTON: Sanction was the word.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, there was no very wide dissimilarity between encouragement and sanction. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to withdraw his assurance that the sanction of the Government would not be withheld from the Property Defence Association supplying armed forces to protect its agents who were engaged in the duty of care-taking. That being the case, he (Mr. J. Lowther) must point out that the Government were certainly prepared to extend their sanction to a state of affairs which would be clearly within a "measurable distance of civil war." The right hon. Gentleman must realize that if, in the opinion of the Advisers of the Crown, personal police protection was necessary in Ireland for the preservation of life or of property, it was the duty of the Government themselves to give that protection. The manner in "which that protection was to be given was a matter that came within the discrimination of the Executive Government; but they would be abdicating their executive functions when they said a state of affairs might arise in which the Government might be debarred, through lack of men, from giving protection to life and property, and were prepared to give its sanction to a private agency to carry out that duty. He thought it was a matter which required the very serious consideration of the House, and he hoped in the course of the debates that were likely to occur on the subject of Ireland some more explicit declaration of the Government policy on this subject would be announced.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Prom the opposite side of the House, Sir, we have heard that there are already too many men in Ireland; now, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) says there are too few. But I wish to say that what the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated was that the Government will not relieve individuals from the individual responsibility of defending themselves—that the Government will, in all cases where it is reasonably necessary, take every precaution within their power for the protection of life and property; that the responsibility rests with the Government; that they must do it in the way they think best, and they must procure sufficient force for the purpose, and apply it in the most effectual and economical manner. If the right hon. Member supposes that the Chief Secretary for Ireland sanctions the Property Defence Association, or any other association, raising a body of armed men, and keeping them up and sending them about the country to such destinations as they think fit, the right hon. Member is in error. For my part, I have only to repeat what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said—that the Government will do their best to supply in all reasonable cases, and under all reasonable circumstances, protection to life and property, and that with all the force and resources at their disposal.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, there had been no complaint of the number of men employed by the Government in Ireland. What hon. Members wanted to know was how many men there were and what extra expense had been incurred. The state of things in Ireland was extremely grave. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had told them that the present Government had spent more money in the protection of life and property in Ireland than any preceding Government had done, and that their resources were nearly exhausted. He (Mr. Balfour), however, thought no one would say that life and property had been more protected than in the time of a preceding Government. If more protection was afforded, it was simply because more protection was required. He thought the Government would hardly say that the increased requirement had been fully met.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was a mistake to suppose he had said that the Government's resources were exhausted, and that they were unable to afford protection in cases where protection was reasonably required. What he had intended to convey to the House was that it would very likely be beyond the power of the Government to grant personal police protection in every case in which it was asked for.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to private enterprize with reference to work which was commonly done by paid agents of the Government. He (Mr. Balfour) thought that in Ireland they were approaching a state of pre-civiliza-tion—
  "When they should take who have the power,
  And they should keep who can."
  He wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether, as regarded private individuals, there were obstacles in the present state of the law in Ireland with regard to the protection of life and property, owing to the Arms Act of last year; and, if there were any such obstacles, whether the Government were prepared to afford any relaxation on that point? However much men might be disposed to take the law into their own hands, they could not do so unless they were provided with weapons.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Peace Preservation Act, the only Act the hon. Member could be possibly referring to, required a licence to have arms, and he (Mr. W. E. Forster) should be exceedingly surprised if the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member could produce a case in which a licence had been refused to a person who was entitled to take a licence.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONpresumed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in encouraging-private persons to take upon themselves their own defence, did not mean them to go beyond what they were entitled to do by the Common Law of the land. Now the Common Law was very limited, and he (Mr. T. C. Thompson) should like to know whether any alteration in it was contemplated by which caretakers defending themselves, and possibly overstepping the very thin line between self-defence and what was regarded by law as assault, would not, after being encouraged by the Government
  1402
  to defend themselves, be subjected to prosecution? The Government ought to be careful lest they gave encouragement to poor ignorant persons in Ireland to break through the law of the land. It was scarcely possible for armed men in an excited state to confine themselves to retaliating upon those who attacked them, and, consequently, it was greatly to be feared that innocent persons might, by the suggestion of the Government, be led to commit acts which would expose them to the risk of punishment by law.
  MR. LEWISsaid, that, as one of the many people connected by interest or association with the protection of life and property in Ireland, he would like to understand the exact position of the Government in this matter, as it seemed they had made a new departure in their policy with respect to the protection of caretakers. They know the Common Law doctrine as to the right of self-defence; but the line between lawful and unlawful resistance was very thinly drawn, and there were some instances on record in which juries both in England and Ireland had undertaken to say that the resistance offered in self-defence was unreasonable, and that for the injuries so inflicted the prisoner was responsible in law. He did not say that the Government were not pressed with difficulties which deserved the consideration of the House. He did not, therefore, blame them; but it was impossible to overlook the case as regarded the protection of caretakers, who might, perhaps, be in charge of a farm bordering a lonely road, or upon a mountain side. These people would be in doubt whether they might employ armed resistance to attack, for the warning from the Treasury Bench might imply that they might be prosecuted by Government, if they inflicted mortal injuries upon anyone. But he begged leave to say again what he had said before, that responsibility rested with the Government for the state of things which existed in Ireland from the 1st of June, 1880. At that time the country had for some time been free from the unlawful possession of arms; but, through the failure of the Government to renew the Peace Preservation Act, it had now drifted into a totally different condition. The population was secretly armed, and persons who were in the position of caretakers were in circum-

  1403
  stances of the greatest possible difficulty with regard to armed mobs. It was essential that the Government should let the people of Ireland know distinctly what was the remedy they were to be at liberty to use, and to what extent they might protect themselves without the danger of being subsequently prosecuted.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he was afraid that caretakers would find themselves placed in a very difficult position by the extraordinary and dangerous doctrines the Government had laid down. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed to suppose that everyone who had a house might resist every attack made upon him. He (Mr. Warton) would venture to alter the expression of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) to the effect that the difference was one between legal and illegal resistance, and would say that the law drew a distinction between resistance and excessive resistance. A man had a right to turn a trespasser out of his house, but he must use no more force than was necessary for the purpose. If a number of men came and pointed weapons at a man, then he might have a right to shoot them, but not otherwise. There might be no right to use weapons against persons coming to the houses in which the caretakers were, because they might pretend that they came for a legal purpose—to use some of the moral arguments of the Land League. If men were shot the result would be that juries would find almost every caretaker guilty of murder. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had wavered very much in this matter. The plain, practical common sense of the late Chief Secretary contrasted strongly with the conduct of the present Chief Secretary. The late Chief Secretary pointed out that such a state of things as was now contemplated was little better than civil war. It seemed to him (Mr. Warton) that there were only three states of society possible. First, there was the absolutely savage state of society, when every man was for himself; secondly, there was the semi-savage state, when the honest men combined and formed vigilance associations for the punishment of wrong-doers and the suppression of crime; and, thirdly, there was a state of civilization where the State protected individuals. The Chief Secretary for Ireland sought to
  1404
  reduce Ireland to the second stage, and to throw upon individuals the duty of affording themselves that protection which the Government withheld from them. The Government seemed to be trying with how few policemen they could govern Ireland. They ought to increase the number of men until every loyal person who ought to be protected was protected. By the in competency of the Government, Ireland had been reduced to a state in which men must unite together to put down those who had no regard for property or life; and now they were, or appeared to be, jealous of the Property Defence Association, who had stepped in to do what the Government itself had failed to do. He did not scruple to say that the Government wished to put these caretakers in a most dangerous position—first of all not to give them the protection to which they were entitled, and then to lead them into difficulty as to the amount of resistance which they were entitled to give. A case was reported in "Russell on Crimes" in which a man was convicted of murder and hung for shooting another who came upon his property. These caretakers would not care to what extent they might go in their own defence. It was stated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that they must not take the Constabulary away from their patrol duty. He (Mr. Warton) maintained that if they could not now afford to take the men away from patrol, the Constabulary should be so increased that the necessary protection could be given. The Government had already attempted to govern Ireland by introducing the most barbarous and semi-civilized ideas with regard to freedom of contract in the matter of land, and they were now trying to reproduce in the country a barbarous state of society.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he thought the Chief Secretary for Ireland had allowed himself to be drawn into dangerous ground by the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). The Government had been asked to give countenance to the formation of another Army in Ireland, which would not be under Government control or discipline, and which would be a very great danger to the peace of Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had, in his (Mr. Sullivan's) opinion, given too much encouragement to the

  1405
  proposal, and his words, when reported in Ireland, would cause a storm of disapprobation. Did the hon. Member who made the proposal mean that this new Army should be supplied with Government rifles, and with what had been referred to in that House as "a certain kind of ammunition?" It seemed to him that this was the suggestion. He warned the Chief Secretary for Ireland to be careful how he gave ear to temptations like these, and how he extended approbation to a scheme for sending bands of armed men into the villages of Ireland to do pretty much as they liked under the plea that they were acting in self-defence. There were already the Military, the Constabulary, the Marines, and the Navy, and it was now sought to obtain Government sanction for the Orange Emergency men. They knew what that meant in Ireland, for the name of the Orange yeomanry of former days was still regarded with horror and detestation by the people.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that it had been suggested by some speakers that the duty of the Government was to relieve owners of property from protecting their rights or defending their lives. That was a very dangerous doctrine to suggest, and he must protest against the idea that the Government was bound to relieve individuals from the duty of self-protection. It was not only the absolute right, but he believed it was the natural and primary duty of every individual to protect his own life and property. The ton. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) had predicted that great difficulties might arise from people not knowing the actual amount of force they might use. Yet the doctrine applied to every community besides Ireland, and the difficulty anticipated was not found to exist. Injury to property did not justify one man shooting another. A man might injure your property to the extent of walking over your flower-bed, but for that you must not shoot him. But if he attempted to take your life, you had a perfect right to resist even to the extent, if necessary, of taking his life. The law was very well defined on the subject. The various questions raised in that House did not affect the broad question, which was one applicable, not only to Ireland, but to every community. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had only
  1406
  stated the course which every individual, under every Government, was permitted to take. He had said that the Government would sanction resistance by persons whose lives or whose property was attacked. That was not sanctioning exceptional or illegal action. It was sanctioning the action which it was the right and duty of every citizen in every country and during every period to enjoy. It would be a dangerous thing to say in any community that the citizen was to give up this right of self-defence, and to become utterly inert, and leave the protection of his life and property to others. That being the view of his right hon. Friend, he could not be said to encourage civil warfare. He was only calling upon every citizen to perform his duties, and accept his own proper responsibility of discriminating as to those persons to whom he would, when their natural protection was not sufficient, give police protection. It was said that the caretakers were entitled to rely on the powers of the Executive; but it was manifestly impossible that they could rely on the Constabulary alone. In that case, it would be necessary always to maintain a military force in the particular district if there were any attempted outrages whatever. The protection should be the ordinary kind of protection given by law; and, at the same time, the caretaker should consider that the force upon which he could rely in case of emergency was not without limit. He must use his discretion, and only resort to the protection of the Executive when the ordinary protection afforded by law proved insufficient. The Government must, no doubt, do its utmost to see that the law was carried out, yet it must not unnecessarily come into conflict with the people. It must meet the necessities of each particular case as they arise, and use its discretion as to the mode of meeting those necessities. He trusted that in this difficulty his right hon. Friend would have the assistance of all loyal persons.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland of the support of all loyal citizens in all reasonable efforts for the good government of the country; but still the Government had announced a new arrangement which was the result of some change of plan in the Executive of Ireland, and they were justified

  1407
  in considering the circumstances which caused that change. If a change had, in fact, taken place, it might be a legitimate change if the circumstances had changed. The result, however, might be to entail a serious sense of responsibility on both sides. As he (Mr. Gibson) understood the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the question to be considered in each case was whether the circumstances were such that protection should be reasonably given or with held. It must be borne in mind that certain persons living in troubled and disturbed districts where they obtained the possession of farms owing to eviction were naturally nervous and apprehensive. They asked for assistance and met with a refusal. Of course, it was fair and reasonable for the Government to say that they would scrutinize jealously and closely every demand for assistance; but if they said to men placed in the position he had described, "You must wait until an emergency arises before we give you protection, and in the meantime you are called upon to protect yourself," they would undoubtedly place those men in a very difficult and painful position. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would sanction those men using all the powers of self-defence. That meant nothing. The ordinary Common Law of the land, without any sanction from the right hon. Gentleman, gave those men the power of defending themselves if their lives or limbs were in jeopardy. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman left them to act on their own discretion with the ordinary powers of the Common Law, and with neither encouragement nor sanction, because the sanction meant nothing, and there was no question of encouragement. He made these observations to show the grave responsibility incurred by the Government, and he was bound to say that the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not appear in the slightest degree to shrink from a due recommendation of that responsibility. The hon. and learned Attorney General for England stated that a person so left to his own discretion should solve his difficulties within the law. He (Mr. Gibson) quite recognized that. In other words, it was not in the power of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he withdrew constables or special protection, to give any power to act outside the law to those whose request for assistance he deliberately refused.
  1408
  But that was rather cold comfort to a man who had already warned the Executive that he expected to be threatened, and possibly to be made the subject of outrage, and had been deliberately refused protection. He again desired to indicate that the refusal of a request for protection under the exceptional circumstances which existed at present obviously entailed the serious responsibility. He admitted, that if requests of that kind had been abused, it should induce the Government to exercise caution and supervision; but it was a circumstance that should induce the Government also to be keenly alive to the grave responsibility of any such refusal.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that the observation that every citizen had a right to defend his property did not apply to a caretaker, who was not taking care of his own property; he was taking care of someone else's, and was generally put in possession alone, but sometimes two care-takers were employed together. What would be the proceedings of those caretakers under the advice recommended by the Government? They would first of all say they were in great danger, and probably would bring some of their friends in the locality, with arms, to assist them in defending themselves. But supposing their friends did come down to them at night with arms in their hands for their protection, was that a proceeding that would be sanctioned by the Government? Would not such persons be held liable by the Government for carrying arms in a proscribed district? But, if they could not get protection from their neighbours, they might do so from one of the Defence Societies—that was to say, armed labourers might be sent down, as in the case of Captain Boycott, with the sanction of the Government. The Government refused the promoters of the Boycott expedition permission to send 200 armed men, from the North into Mayo, because they thought it would lead to civil war, and they were perfectly right. But what was the difference between 200 or 300 men going to Mayo at that time, and 10 or 12 men sent now by the Property Defence Association into some remote district with rifles and revolvers, to protect men who could not obtain police protection? It surely was better to employ disciplined men rather than undisciplined men to act in such cases, for they would

  1409
  act with caution and under some sense of responsibility. It must be remembered that in defending places from attack at night, these non-disciplined men could not act like the members of a disciplined force; they would not venture outside the house, but would most likely open the windows and fire at anything they saw approaching; but that would be a highly dangerous mode of proceeding. Persons might come to the house at night with a perfectly innocent intention and might be shot in that manner. Another matter was this—persons taking care of caretakers in this manner might indulge in drink, and when inflamed by some sudden alarm, might they not be disposed to fire away all round them? He really thought this proposal or intention of the Government was one of the most dangerous he had heard yet. He believed it would be much cheaper and better in the end to increase the police force than to run the risk of initiating a series of petty civil wars. Proceedings on the part of caretakers would be certain to provoke acts of murder and retaliation. An Englishman living in his own house, in town or country, was in a very different position from an Irishman living in a lone country place; and to leave these persons in Ireland to take care of themselves, either with the assistance of their friends, or with the help of armed parties sent by a body like the Emergency Society, would be very injurious to the peace of that country.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that, having already spoken, he had no right to address the House; but he would ask leave to make an explanation, because he gathered that it had been imputed to him that the suggestion of the employment of armed bodies of men other than forces under the control of the Government had been made by him. He had made no such suggestion. On the contrary, he could not imagine anything that was more likely to create civil war. He had asked for an explanation of an answer which had been given to him by a Member of the Government. In his answer the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland appeared to encourage the idea of what might be called self protection or self-defence. Now, the position of a caretaker was out) of imminent danger, and no caretaker could protect himself. He must, therefore, express his decided opinion that
  1410
  this matter remained in a most unsatisfactory state.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland safely returned from Ireland, where he had gone to assist in the return of his (Mr. O'Donnell's) hon. Friend the new Member for Meath. He could assure the House that there was no other Gentleman in the United Kingdom who was so capable of securing similar returns from one end of Ireland to the other. He understood he had deigned to give his sanction to the formation of parties—the "Guerillas" he believed he might call them—who were to be engaged, as the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) had justly described, in the initiation of a source of civil war in Ireland. However, those who were interested on the side of the landlords need not be alarmed on account of the sanction which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given to operations of that kind. The hon. and learned Attorney General had pointed out that every one of the Emergency men connected with those operations would be bound not to make excessive use of his power—that to reply to a trifling menace by a bullet or a volley of buckshot would not be a crime according to the Common Law, which in Ireland was no law at all under Her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. O'Donnell) begged to remind the defenders of the landlord cause in Ireland that the sanction of the Government in Ireland was quite excluded in the alarm of any excessive danger being incurred by caretakers or others who might commit "fatal mistakes" of that description, because it would always be in the power of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to move the Queen's Bench to question such inconvenient circumstances as the verdicts of wilful murder returned by coroners' juries. The other day, in the eases where Ellen M'Donagh, a girl of 20 years of age, was stamped to death, and a poor old widow of the name of Deane was shot by the Constabulary, the Government obtained from the Irish Court of Queen's Bench a conditional order quashing the verdicts of wilful murder against the constables who killed that girl and that widow. Therefore, the hon. Member for Tyrone need have no fear as to the result of the "accidents" which might arise through the convivial carousing to which he had referred.

  1411
  There was really no hindrance put in the way of societies or associations for the defence of property in Ireland. But the sanction of the Government would be found to be a good deal more elastic than india-rubber; and unless people also considered the sanction extended to them, and took necessary steps in self-defence against the "Guerilla" Emergency men, he was afraid there would be no end to the operations which the landlord party might have recourse to. But, looking at the matter from a Liberal point of view, if the landlord party wished to have a just and sufficient amount of protection for their operations, they should limit their operations to what was just and right. The thing that was driving all matters to a desperate pass in Ireland was the exaction of arrears. Let the landlords of Ireland take example from the landlords of England. Let them make large, just, and generous concessions in the matter of arrears accruing from bad seasons, and there would be no necessity for multiplying the number of their caretakers, and no necessity for such methods of protecting them, or for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to sanction them.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed, to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1881–2.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
  (1.) £2,094, Royal Palaces.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURobjected to the mode of rewarding services to the Crown and country by granting residences to families at Hampton Court and other Royal Palaces, and expressed a hope that the Government would bring the present system to an end. Every year there was a charge for repairs and extensive alterations to be found in the Votes, and almost every year there was a Supplementary Estimate for the same purpose. He thought it would be far better for the House of Commons to come to an agreement with the Crown that a certain sum of money should be placed at the disposal of the
  1412
  Crown for the purpose of rewarding the families of public servants, and
  allowing them to find suitable accommodation for themselves. The present mode was not only costly to the country, but it was a mode of rewarding public services which was unsuitable to the persons rewarded themselves. At present many families were occupying apartments in Hampton Court and other Royal Palaces who ought to be able to mix with the people and live with them. He had often complained of this Vote, and had more than once brought it under the attention of the House. If rumour were true, there was about to be a demand upon the public purse for another Member of the Royal Family. He had always supported the claim of the Royal Family to be provided for; but he thought that the attempt to get every kind of expenditure connected with the Royal Palaces charged on the House of Commons was injurious to the Royal Family themselves, and he hoped the Government would try to do away with the present system of occupying apartments in the Royal Palaces. He was quite willing that the nation should perform the duty of providing for any Kings and Princes who might come upon a visit to this country. But at present there was no Palace whatever for these illustrious personages—at any rate, there was no Palace in which they could be adequately received and have fair and courteous treatment done to them. Whenever a Royal Potentate visited this country he was either obliged to go to some hotel, or some Members of the Royal Family had to take him into the Palace set apart for their own special accommodation. That was the arrangement which had been made on other occasions, and it was a most unsatisfactory one. He held distinctly that the nation had a duty to perform in finding accommodation for Royalty when it came over here, and that there should be Royal Palaces in which to lodge any Crowned Head or Royal Prince if necessary. In the case of the Shah of Persia, when he came over here, he occupied one of the Royal Palaces set apart especially for the Queen. He (Sir George Bal-four) knew perfectly well that he should meet with no support from the Government, and it would be undignified for him to divide the House of Commons

  1413
  upon a matter of this kind; but if the Government would not receive the remonstrance of an hon. Member like himself, and would continue to neglect their duty, he could not help it. At all events, he had urged his objection to the system which now prevailed. He might mention that on one occasion he had obtained leave from the Chief Commissioner of the late Government to move for a Return of the names of all all persons occupying apartments in the Royal Palaces; but, on consideration, he thought that, perhaps, the Return might give unnecessary pain to the individuals occupying apartments in the Palaces and who had accepted the Royal bounty. He had not, therefore, pressed for the production of the Return. Of course, there were means of ascertaining who these persons were, and he thought it would be much better to give them an allowance—say £200 or £500, or even £1,000 a-year, if necessary, to find apartments for themselves, so as to enable them not only to mix with the people, but to occupy residences suitable to their condition in life.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the items to which the hon. and gallant Member called attention were rendered necessary by the repair of certain apartments. He did not think that the Committee would expect him to go, on the present occasion, into the very wide subject which had been raised by his hon and gallant Friend. It was true that for many years Hampton Court and Kensington Palaces had been devoted to purposes other than Royal residence, most of the apartments having been occupied by the widows of persons who had rendered public service. Most of these apartments were totally unfit for any other purpose, and were certainly not suitable for receiving Royalty, as his hon. and gallant Friend suggested. He did not admit that expense had been occasioned by alterations in them to suit the convenience of the occupiers.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that what he asked for was information. He had visited these Palaces himself, and he knew that extensive changes had been made—especially at Kensington Palace—in order to make the Palaces more suitable for the persons required to live in them. Not only £1,000, but many thousands of pounds, had been expended in that manner, and
  1414
  he thought it would be much, better to make the Palaces suitable for the accommodation of Royalty, or pull them down altogether. He had inquired why the changes were being made, and he was told that they were to provide suitable accommodation for the persons who wanted to use them. He, therefore, considered that it was his duty to bring the matter before the House. He knew perfectly well that nothing he could say would induce the Government to do that which he asked. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman thought the Government were acting rightly; but he (Sir George Balfour) would leave it to the Committee to judge whether that was so or not.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £800, Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds.
  (3.) £1,800, Public Buildings, Great Britain.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid he wished to call attention to the large increase in this Vote. The original Estimate was £3,515, and the additional sum required £1,800. This was stated to be necessary 'in consequence of the acceleration of the progress of the Survey of the United Kingdom;" but that acceleration was resolved on long before the original Estimate was prepared, and in the Supplementary Estimate of last year an addition of £1,500 was included in consequence of that acceleration. He thought that, in these circumstances, the original Estimate should have been framed so as to include a large portion of what now appeared in the Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member was perfectly right in saying that the House had been asked for an additional sum in the previous year over and above that which was required this year; and the expenditure was rendered necessary in consequence of a very largely-increased number of persons being employed in the completion of the Survey. In consequence of this increased number of persons, it was necessary that additional buildings should be provided for their accommodation. He might also point out that it was intended to ask for another additional sum of £20,000 in order to enable the Survey to be accelerated, and the

  1415
  sum asked for in this Vote was to meet the anticipated increase next year.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £1,000, Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he thought the Vote contained a grave accusation against the Commissioners of Supply, Scotland, in delaying to send in the accounts of the outlay on the Sheriff Courts. The Commissioners were generally very regular in all they did; and he would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to tell the Committee what part of Scotland had been so negligent in delaying to send in its accounts? He believed that if the name of the county were given to the public the same delay would not occur again.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the claim was for repayment of half the cost of building certain works. The payment was supposed to be made when the works were completed, and in the course of a very short time they would be completed. In preparing the Estimate, of course, the Government could only be guided by the accounts sent in. They had to pay the claim when it was made upon them. He believed that this particular claim was in respect of Aberdeenshire. The sum the Government were called upon to pay was £1,000. The expenditure had been extended over three years and three-quarters, and the account was only sent in last year.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £1,096, Harbours, &c. under the Board of Trade.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he was sure he should receive the support of the Government, and especially that of the First Commissioner of Works, in opposing this Vote. He maintained that to add to the works at Dover without giving the House of Commons previous notice, was a breach of the agreement already entered into in regard to a cessation of expenditure at Dover Bay. It would be borne in mind that some years ago there was an inquiry into a proposed large expenditure on Dover, the object of which was to prevent loose Estimates of this nature being introduced, and an expenditure entered into which might, in the end,
  1416
  involve the country in an outlay of several millions sterling. That inquiry was successful; the late Government at once stopped the intended outlay. But here they had, at the fag end of the Session, a new charge made for Dover Harbour, which, as was well known, was in contravention of the agreement already made. So far as he could remember, there was not a single particle of information in existence which showed that this charge for moorings had been incurred on the part of the Government; and if hon. Members would support him he would divide the Committee against it, for the purpose of showing how objectionable it was to have these small bills asked for additional works at Dover Harbour. He knew very well that there was a strong desire to get a fine harbour at Dover. [Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH dissented.] The noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) shook his head; but they all knew that such an idea existed, and in a very influential quarter, and he now hoped the noble Lord would be able to explain why this unexpected expenditure had been incurred, and why it had not been inserted in the regular Estimates, instead of being kept for a Supplemental one.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHcould assure his hon. and gallant Friend that this sum had nothing to do with any extension of Dover Harbour. His own feeling with regard to that question was exactly that of his hon. and gallant Friend; but this item had nothing whatever to do with any new works or extension of Dover Harbour. The simple fact was that Dover Harbour was in the hands of the Government. A proposal was made last year to vest it in the local authorities; but, owing to local difficulties, that proposal could not be carried out, and Dover Harbour still remained in the hands of the Government. In that harbour it was found that certain moorings, which had been there for more than 30 years, had become absolutely unsafe. Now, he did not think that his hon. and gallant Friend would be of opinion that ships should be fastened to moorings which were known to be in a dangerous state. The Vote had nothing to do with any works, but was simply for the purpose of replacing old moorings by providing new ones.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he did not think there was any ob-

  1417
  jection to the charge if it was simply for moorings of the nature described by the noble Lord, and for pilot boats, he presumed. At the same time, he did not see why the Government should be called upon to provide moorings for ships or boats without levying fees. Of course, it was a very small sum, and it was hardly worth while to object to it, except on principle. If the old moorings were bad, of course they ought to be replaced. But this ought to have been foreseen when the regular Estimates were prepared. But he strongly suspected that the duty of replacing them really rested with the town of Dover. The noble Lord knew very well the interest he took in Dover; but, in the present instance, he would be content with reserving any objection he might have to offer until after Easter, when the Estimates for Harbours would come regularly before the House.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £527, Hates on Government Property.
  MR. BIGGARasked for an explanation of this Vote. He wanted to know what it really meant. He understood that it was for rates and contributions in lieu of rates in Ireland. What connection had the Government with rates and contributions in lieu of rates in Ireland? In what way did they become responsible for these rates?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the hon. Member knew that the Queen's College in Belfast was the property of the Government, and for that property the Government were liable to contribute towards the rates.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £3,000, Shannon Navigation.
  MR. BIGGARasked if he was to understand that the work was to be finished during the financial year, and that this sum of £3,000 was the whole of the money that would be asked for?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the work would not be completed during the present year; but the sum of £3,000 would be spent during the year.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
  (8.) £2,300, Foreign Office.
  (9.) £6,300, Colonial Office.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the increase upon this Vote seemed to him to be a very large one. The sum appeared to have been expended entirely in telegrams. He thought that a sum of £6,000 for telegrams, even in South Africa, was a very large amount. Things were very much more threatening last year in South Africa, and a similar expenditure was not required. He wished to know what the explanation of the increase was.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the hon. Member was no doubt aware that a Royal Commission had been appointed for the purpose of undertaking certain negotiations in South Africa, owing to the disputes between the Transvaal and ourselves. During those negotiations it was found necessary to telegraph very frequently between the Colonial Office and the Commissioners, and telegraphing from here to South Africa was not a very cheap matter.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) £2,300, Civil Service Commission.
  (11.) £215, Friendly Societies Registry.
  (12.) £5,140, Local Government Board.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to call attention to one item under sub-head "D" which stated that a further sum of £2,400 was required
  "On account of additions to the salaries of Tour Law Medical Officers in certain cases, on account of the appointment of some additional Poor Law Medical Officer, and also in consequence of the largely increased expenditure for drugs occasioned by the small-pox epidemic."
  He believed that the Local Government Board charged so much for these things in England, and he wanted to know whether the ratepayers in Ireland would get a similar grant with regard to similar charges?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHreplied in the affirmative.
  MR. BIGGARwished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether this Vote would apply to the Bill introduced the other night which dealt with rates and payments?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Bill referred to had relation to superannuations, and not to salaries.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £19,600, Stationery and Printing.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought he had some right to complain of the conduct of the Government in bringing forward this Estimate before the House was in possession of the Appropriation Accounts of last year. Without the information which those Accounts embodied, it was perfectly impossible for the Committee to form any reasonable opinion as to the accuracy of the reasons adduced in these Supplementary Estimates for the voting of the further sums required. Now it struck him that the Public Accounts Committee was utterly unrepresented in the present Committee of Supply, except by the noble Lord the Financial Secretary himself. He gathered that in point of fact the Public Accounts Committee had not yet had an opportunity of forming an opinion; and some years ago a Committee, including the noble Lord, made strong representations in one of their Reports as to the desirability of the information furnished to the Committee being laid before Parliament before these Votes were produced at the beginning of the Session. But the fact was that the House had not had that information. This Vote would illustrate what he meant. Last year a considerable amount of discussion arose as to sums asked for in connection with the Stationery Services, and two or three points especially were dealt with, not only in regard to the printing of the House of Commons generally, but also in regard to the confidential printing of the Foreign Office, and one or two other Departments. At that time the noble Lord told them that the Government had Under consideration some very important alterations in the existing system, which alterations were to bring about a considerable reduction of expense. It would now appear not only that the expenditure had not been reduced, but that the Government were under the necessity of asking for £19,600 more than had originally been asked for. He should feel obliged if the noble Lord would account, if possible, for the delay in issuing the Accounts, and when he did so, perhaps he would also explain what steps the
  1420
  Government had taken to give effect to their promise of last year, and how the matters connected with the Government printing now stood.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he thought the hon. Member was mistaken as to the Public Accounts Committee. It had been recommended that a Committee of the House of Commons should make an examination of the public expenditure on printing, &c.; but the Public Accounts Committee had nothing whatever to do with the Estimates. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would use his influence with some of his Colleagues, and enable them to appoint the Committee of Public Accounts at an early date, so that the accounts might be placed before the House at an early period.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it was not the appointment of the Public Accounts Committee he referred to, but the Appropriation Accounts, which ought to have been issued to Members.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that with respect to the Appropriation Account that was a matter which did not lie with the Treasury; but he would inquire into the subject. He believed that it was not usual to present the Accounts until towards the end of the month; but he would inquire at what date the Accounts could be presented. He was not surprised that this Vote had attracted the attention of the hon. Member. The steady increase of the Vote was most unsatisfactory. There was a very large increase in spite of the strenuous exertions which had been made by the present Controller of the Office. He believed that one great reason for the increase was the mass of Correspondence which in all the Offices was steadily increasing, and which it was impossible to prevent. Over and over again, he had himself been struck by the enormous increase in the Correspondence of the various Offices within the last few years; but, as regarded the business itself, the contracts were on more favourable terms than they used to be, and he believed that the Department was conducted as economically as possible. The expenditure, however, did not depend upon the Controller of the Stationery Office, who had to meet the demands of the Public Offices. He (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had been asked last year if he could not provide more information as to the expenditure

  1421
  of the different Offices in respect of stationery; and he was happy to say that he would shortly be able to present a Report to the House showing the expenditure of the different Offices. A Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament had been appointed to see whether any changes for the better could not be effected. That Committee issued a very valuable Report last year, and recommended that certain changes should be made. He had already given Notice of certain Resolutions with respect to Parliamentary printing; and he hoped, if the House adopted them, that they would lead to greater economy for the future.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the noble Lord for further information respecting the Foreign Office printing.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it was not an easy matter to check the Foreign Office printing. It was quite true that a high price was paid for it; but hon. Members must recollect that it was of importance that the utmost caution should be exercised. With respect to the documents printed by the Foreign Office, there was good reason for extra payment. The whole of the documents of the Foreign Office were of a confidential nature; and it was a matter of extreme importance, as regarded all our foreign relations, that their confidential character should be preserved. The consequences which might arise from any breach of
  confidence in that Department made it well worth while to pay something additional for the expense of printing. He could, however, assure the hon. Member that this matter should not be lost sight of, and that the Stationery Office and the Government would do all in their power to curtail the expenditure. At the same time, he thought it would be bad economy to incur any risk of those confidential documents getting out.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not at all underrate the importance of the confidential printing of the Foreign Office; but it did appear to him strange that certain confidential printing for other Departments as well as the Foreign Office should be performed at a cost of 40 per cent less than that of the Foreign Office. He failed to see that where the work was of an equally confidential character it should be paid for at a different rate.
  Vote agreed to.
  (14.) £850, Works and Public Buildings Office.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the explanation given as to the effect of these Votes was generally easily understood, and perfectly satisfactory; but it did appear to him that this Vote was of a very improper nature, and unless the explanation was entirely satisfactory he should feel inclined to oppose it altogether. It stated at the end of the Vote that it was
  "The amount of special gratuities to two of the Surveyors on the Establishment in respect of the erection from their designs, and under their superintendence, of certain large Public Buildings."
  He understood that to mean that two men, who were paid year by year certain salaries for doing certain work, because in one year the work was a little heavier than in another, they were to receive an extra amount of salary. It was certainly an absurdity on the face of it that a Surveyor on the Establishment, getting an annual salary for his services, should, if he did a little extra work, receive a gratuity in addition. In all probability the work of a Surveyor in one year was very light, and, if in another year it became a little heavier, he ought to be required to take the good and the bad together.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHstated that these payments were made in accordance with the recommendation of a Committee of Inquiry in 1876. It had been the general custom in case of very important works to employ a special architect, who received a commission of 5 per cent. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone shook his head.
  CAPTAIN AYLMER: I shook it because I disputed the principle, not the fact.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Instead of that principle the Committee recommended that, wherever it was possible, one of the Surveyors of the Board of Works should be intrusted with the responsibility of the construction of these buildings, and since that system had been carried out it had answered very well. For the extra responsibility thrown upon them they received a small gratuity. In the course of the present year three important buildings had been completed, namely:—Bow Street Police Court, the Savings Banks Office in Queen Victoria Street, and the Liverpool County Court. These works

  1423
  had been erected under the supervision of the Surveyor of the Board of Works, and the Committee decided that the gentlemen who had been thus employed should receive a small gratuity, which amounted to a sum infinitely smaller than the sum which would have been paid to an architect if an architect had been employed; and, in addition, the work had been better done.
  MR. METGEsaid, this was a question which interested an Irish Member to a certain extent, because a ease of a similar character had occurred in Dublin the other day. It seemed to him, from the explanation given by the noble Lord, that the custom used to be to employ an experienced architect in cases of this nature, whereas the plan now adopted was to employ the ordinary Surveyor connected with the Public Office, and to give him a gratuity instead of having a more experienced man. Now, in this case it seemed to him that the cost would amount very much to the same thing without having the services of so experienced a man.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he could assure the hon. Member that the Liverpool County Court and the other buildings cost £91,000, and that 5 per cent upon that sum would have been £4,550, instead of which these Surveyors received £600 for this particular work.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, that he did not object to the employment of the Surveyor of the Board of Works instead of an architect, in the circumstances which were explained by the noble Lord; but he thought that as it was known when the Estimate was prepared that the Surveyor of the Board of Works was to be employed, the Estimate should have included the remuneration to be given him for the extra work he had to perform.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHremarked, that there was a little difficulty in foreseeing at what time the items would come into payment; and they were, therefore, not charged as the work was going on, but only when it was completed.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he quite agreed with the desirability of giving some little gratuity to public servants for extra or good work done. It, however, required to be exercised with great care; but he
  1424
  thought the noble Lord ought to include in the Vote the names of the persons who had deserved well of the public. Not only should their names be given, but the amount of remuneration received under each head should be fully stated. He thought such a public proceeding would afford great encouragement to public servants, and do good. Under all the circumstances, he certainly would not think of objecting to the Vote.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he had no desire to divide the Committee upon the Vote; but he would like the noble Lord to say that the principle should be avoided in future as far as possible. He thought that if gentlemen were employed in the Public Departments, they ought to receive a commensurate salary for the services they rendered, and should not be led to look forward to gratuities. The salary should cover all the work the public servants had to do. Nothing could be more injurious than holding out the hope that the House of Commons might be induced hereafter to vote an extra sum. The work must certainly be done in the time which ought to be devoted to the public service, and for which a salary was paid, and the principle of paying an extra gratuity for devoting that time to other work was altogether wrong. Nothing could be worse than to lead architects or surveyors to suppose that they were to receive a certain commission or gratuity, according to the extent and value of the work recommended to be done. The principle was a very bad one indeed, and the cost of buildings would run to a far higher figure than if it were provided for and carried out by salaried officers connected with the Department—not paid by commission or gratuity, but by salary only. If the noble Lord would not give an undertaking that some arrangement would be made in future, either to raise the salaries to a commensurate sum, or to employ persons who were not already salaried servants, he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the Government had acted entirely upon the recommendation of the Committee of 1876. It was the belief of the Committee that the plan they recommended would lead to economy. The Government adopted the recommenda-

  1425
  tion of the Committee in good faith; and he believed, from what he had heard, that the arrangement worked well. He should be happy, however, if it were the wish of the non. and gallant Member, to inquire into the matter; but he would not like to take upon himself the responsibility of altering the arrangement which had been made, after full inquiry, in 1876.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if he was correct in understanding from the noble Lord that the building of the Liverpool County Court was completed?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHreplied in the affirmative.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was glad the noble Lord had mentioned that fact, because the mention of it had induced him to turn back to the Estimates of last Session, and there he found that the original Estimate for the total cost of the Liverpool County Court was £32,000. Under this arrangement, which the noble Lord said had worked so well, he found that, instead of the work being done for £.32,000, £40,000 had actually been spent; and, therefore, the country had had to pay £8,000 more than was originally asked for, and this was only one of the things which the Surveyor had had in hand.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that, if he was not mistaken, the item referred to included some other things besides the cost of building.
  Vote agreed to.
  (15.) £286, Fishery Board, Scotland.
  (16.) Motion made, and Question, proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 18S2, fur the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."
  MR. REDMONDsaid, he wished to avail himself of this opportunity of protesting, in the only way in which it was possible for him to protest, against the establishment of the Lord Lieutenant and Viceroy of Ireland. If he could protest against this establishment in no other way, he intended to protest by dividing" the Committee against it. Last Session he had taken the opportunity of expressing an opinion that the establishment of the Viceroy in Ireland was the centre
  1426
  of demoralization in that country. He was quite sure that in that sentiment he would be echoed by most of the Members from Ireland, with the exception, perhaps, of a few hon. Gentlemen who represented certain interests in Dublin, and who were desirous of maintaining the Viceroyalty from selfish motives—namely, the desire to keep up an institution which, in some way or other, they looked upon as assisting the trade and commerce of that city. He was sure, however, that a great difference of opinion might exist upon that point; and those who had strong feelings in regard to the mode in which Irish affairs were conducted and who viewed the proceedings of the Executive with distrust, must take that opportunity of protesting against the maintenance of the present system of government in that country. When the whole question came on upon the regular Estimates in Supply, there would be a better opportunity of going into details and showing the reasons why the Irish Members protested against this Vote. On the present occasion, it was not necessary to go at length into such arguments, beyond simply stating that the Irish Members protested against the Vote, because it afforded the means of keeping up an establishment which they altogether objected to. For that reason he intended to divide the Committee against the Vote.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, the Viceroyalty of Ireland was, and had always been, nothing else than a cause of demoralization. He knew many Irishmen who seemed to think that the fact of there being a Viceroy in Ireland was, to some extent, a proof that the Irish were a distinct nation; but he, for one, was quite prepared to dispense with proof of that character, and he should feel it his duty to oppose the Vote on division.
  MR. R. POWERalso protested against the Viceregal system. At an earlier period of the Session he had asked leave to introduce a Bill into that House which had for its object the abolition of the Office of Viceroy; but hon. Members would recollect that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland thought it the right course to pursue to commence Obstruction by opposing the introduction of the measure. It had always appeared to him a curious thing, and a matter of wonder, that, even on the supposition that there should be a

  1427
  Lord Lieutenant in Ireland and a Tice-regal Court, the duties of the position
  should be discharged by an Englishman. He should think that an Irishman would be more proper to fill the Office of Lord Lieutenant than an Englishman. It would be quite intelligible if the Government were to send over to Ireland an Irishman who understood the condition and wants of the country, and who sympathized with the people in their feelings and aspirations. He could understand an appointment of that kind perfectly well. But he could never understand on what principle the Lord Lieutenants of Ireland were selected under the present system. As a rule, they had hitherto been men who were either little known in Ireland or unqualified for the discharge of such duties as were connected with the Office. They were, moreover, men who brought over with them to the country all the prejudices, and, without saying it offensively, he would add, all the narrowness of mind which they possessed as Englishmen. They were on their installation at the Castle of Dublin surrounded by a class of permanent officials, who, whether there was a Liberal or Tory Government in Office, were the persons who actually ruled the destinies of the country; while, as far as he could discern, the duties of the Lord Lieutenant himself consisted in giving a few dinners and balls to the citizens of Dublin, which latter were naturally grateful in view of future entertainments. But what was the feeling throughout the country? He maintained that outside the City of Dublin the Viceroyalty was one of the most unpopular institutions in Ireland. His hon. Colleague the Member for Water-ford (Mr. Leamy) had informed the Committee that there were certain Irishmen who held that the mere fact of there being a Viceroy of Ireland marked the people as belonging to a separate and distinct nation. That might be a correct view of the relations between England and Ireland, so far as it went; but he should be sorry to think that it was the only thing which marked the national distinction which existed. He and his hon. Friends opposed the present Vote on principle, because they felt that the Viceregal institution in Ireland tended to create a miserable, servile, and cringing spirit amongst certain
  1428
  portions of the people; and they opposed it, moreover, on the ground that the people of Ireland did not wish to have a Viceregal Court maintained there. Not only did the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland receive £20,000 a-year for the performance of his duties, but he (Mr. R. Power) observed in the Estimates that the sum of £7,270 was also paid to him for the salaries and expenses of his household. The few remarks upon this subject which he and his hon. Friends had felt it their duty to make were to be regarded as merely by way of protest, because opportunities would present themselves later on in the Session for discussing this question more fully, and in a manner more suited to its importance. On the present occasion, he thought the convenience of the Committee would be best consulted by simply taking a division against the Vote.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURpointed out that twice during the last 50 years it had been proposed to abolish the Office of Viceroy of Ireland. On both those occasions the proposal came from a Scotchman; but never during the time referred to had any Irishman come forward to propose the abolition of the Office. On the contrary, when these Motions were brought forward they were opposed by the Representatives of the Irish people. When any hon. Member opposite brought forward a Motion to abolish the Office of Viceroy, he promised to support him, because he believed the Office to be the bane of Ireland; and he trusted that the proposal would meet with success.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) would not press his opposition to a division. He could assure the hon. Member that no one in that House was more opposed to the Office of Viceroy of Ireland than he was, and it was his intention fully to discuss the question when the Vote for the year came forward; but upon the present Vote he should abstain from offering any opposition.
  MR. METGEpointed out that the objections taken by Irish Members on the present occasion were not to the Vote itself, but to the principle involved in it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kincardine (Sir George Balfour), in charging Irish Members with not having supported the Motions which had been brought forward for

  1429
  the abolition of the Office of Viceroy of Ireland, had forgotten the material circumstance that, at the time when those Motions were made, Ireland could not be said to be represented in that House. But the hon. and gallant Member would have no cause to make the same remark again, because he assured him that so long as Irishmen were allowed to speak from those Benches this Estimate would be contested. He quite agreed with the remark of the hon. and gallant Member that the Office of Viceroy was the bane of Ireland. Nevertheless, there were many advanced Irishmen who said—"Why not leave the unfortunate Lord Lieutenant alone, for, after all, he spends some money in Ireland?" For his part, however, he regarded the money spent by the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland as a curse to the country. He was willing to admit that Chief Secretary after Chief Secretary went over to Ireland, as did the right hon. Gentleman who at present filled that Office, with honest intentions. But in what quarter did they seek the information necessary for their guidance? It was obtained from the hotbed of the worst form of Toryism in the country—Dublin Castle—and was enmeshed and involved in class prejudice and Party idiosyncrasy. From that centre Ireland was governed, and not only did the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, but all those who preceded him in that Office, derive their information through the medium of the officials at Dublin Castle. It was upon these grounds that Irish Members now opposed the Vote—not because of the amount asked for, which was in itself trivial, but in order to show that, on every occasion, they intended to protest against the Office of Viceroy as coutrary to the national feeling of Ireland.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he thought it was rather too much to assert that a certain number of Gentlemen on the opposite Benches alone represented the Irish people, because there were many hon. Members on that side of the House who had a voice in the representation of Ireland. It was worth while, on the part of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Metge), to observe that if he would study the history of the Irish people he would find, whatever might he the vices of the Office, that the first Viceroy who recommended the institution of an Irish Parliament was Lord Chester-
  1430
  field, to whom Ireland was indebted for the events of 1782 more than anyone else. Moreover, he would find that Lord Fitzwilliam was the first person who, as Viceroy, recommended the emancipation of Irish Catholics.
  DR. LYONSobserved, that, although the subject of the Vote was one on which a good deal was to be said, he did not consider that the present occasion was a proper one for its discussion. When the proper time arrived he would be in a position to show that the feeling of the country was in favour of the retention of the Viceroyalty.
  MR. LEAMYadmitted the subject of this Vote was one which had been very much debated, and on which a good deal was to be said, and that different opinions with regard to it were held by Gentlemen who, generally speaking, entertained the same political views as him self; for, as he had already stated, there were some who thought that the mere fact that the Office of Viceroy existed in Ireland was an indication to the people of England that the Irish people were a distinct nation. But, holding the views which he held with regard to that Office, he felt bound to seize every opportunity of recording his vote in favour of its abolition. As to the remark of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers),that it was too much to assort that a certain number of Gentlemen on these Benches alone represented the Irish people, he would remind the Committee that within the last few days Ireland had given a very significant proof that, at any rate, if hon. Members on these Benches were not the sole Representatives of the people of Ireland, the people whom they did represent would shortly become the dominant Party in Irish politics. He referred to the return by an Irish constituency as their Representative of a man whom the English Government had thought fit to send to the Convict Prison at Portland. That circumstance was, he thought, sufficient to show that the public opinion of his country was going beyond the views of hon. Members near him, and that men even more advanced than they would be the future Representatives of Ireland. The hon. and learned Professor the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had referred to the initiative taken in certain political matters by two of the former Viceroys of

  1431
  Ireland, in reply to which he would only say that the mere fact that one or two men who had filled the Viceregal Office might have been friends of Irish independence did not of itself make that Office necessary to Irish freedom.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYremarked, that the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) was nothing if not historical. He was willing to admit that Lord Chesterfield was, perhaps, the best Viceroy ever sent over from England to Ireland; but he would like to ask the hon. Member how many of Lord Chesterfield's views were carried out, and of what use to Ireland were his abilities? Why, he had been of no more use to Ireland than the right hon. Gentleman who had recently been gent there. And then with regard to Lord Fitzwilliam, the hon. Member would know that he was recalled on account of his suggestions, and that his recall was one of the causes that led to the Rebellion of 1798. The truth was that the Office of Viceroy was of no manner of use in serving the country, while it did some negative harm by creating a false public opinion and a spirit of flunkeyism. The City of Dublin had been well described by an Englishman as the capital of flunkeyism; and, as a matter of fact, the Office conferred but a mock distinction, while the Court which surrounded it was merely a sham. He would not detain the Committee at greater length on that occasion, but he looked forward to the time when the question of the Irish Viceroyalty would be fully debated in the House of Commons; and even now he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) would persevere and carry his opposition to a division, for although the amount of the money was small, he was glad that it had been the means of enabling his hon. Colleagues to protest against the principle involved in the Vote.
  MR. FINIGANrose to oppose the Vote. He had not addressed the House during the present Session upon any subject connected with Irish affairs; but he felt himself compelled, by the circumstances of the case, to protest in the strongest manner against one single sovereign, or, indeed, a single penny, being paid to the so-called Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. That official was certainly not a Lord Lieutenant in a representative sense, and all the his-
  1432
  torical reminiscences which the learned Professor sitting upon the Whig Benches opposite could bring forward in that House in favour of ancient and forgotten Lord Lieutenants was of no use, and had no application whatever in the present discussion upon a matter of expenditure in Ireland. The Lord Lieutenancy was a complete farce. It was one of those things which were commonly known as a fraud upon the people. He assured hon. Members that, however much it might be objected to in certain circles, the Irish Members sitting on the Opposition Benches represented the Irish nation. If the landlords of Ireland and the officials at Dublin Castle were left out of the question it would be found that those Members were the real and actual Representatives of the people of Ireland. They objected, and they appealed to other hon. Members to object, to the payment of a large salary to a man who had really nothing to do with the government of Ireland as far as regarded its welfare. He spent his time and money, or rather the money which he received from England, in giving nice little semi-official parties, and in entertaining all the would - be aristocracy of Irish landlordism and society. He sincerely trusted the Committee would oppose the payment of any money derived from English taxation to that personage called the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whose Office in Ireland was simply a mockery and a delusion, and whose presence there was a sham. He would be very sorry that any amount drawn from the pockets of the people of England should be expended in keeping up such a mockery in the City of Dublin as the Lord Lieutenancy, surrounded by its circle of official hacks. He was not prepared to deny that the Lord Lieutenant was a very able man. With 50,000 troops at his command his position very much resembled that of a Turkish Pasha; but as to his being a Governor in the proper sense of the term, or interesting himself in the Government of Ireland, no such argument could be supported either in theory or in fact. He hoped that the learned Professor (Mr. Thorold Rogers), who had never expressed any friendly feeling towards Ireland, or, as far as he knew, said anything in favour of Irish, nationality, would re-read the history of

  1433
  the Irish people, with a view to making his historical references more applicable and somewhat correct.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 12: Majority 92.—Div. List, No. 22.)
  (17.) Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £900, be granted to Her Majesty, 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 Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, as the present Vote was almost a corollary to that which preceded it, the opposition offered to it by Irish Members would be consequential. The Office of Chief Secretary was one which would follow that of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the latter were abolished, as he hoped it soon would be. The abolition of the Chief Secretaryship and the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland was a proposition which had over and over again been put forward in the House of Commons within the last 50 years. It was made in 1824 by Mr. Hume, who again brought it forward in 1830, and in 1850 Lord John Russell introduced a Bill for the abolition of these Offices, upon which occasion every one of the then Conservative Chief Secretaries for Ireland voted in favour of the measure. He had forgotten the names of those Gentlemen; but there were six of them in existence at the time, and all of them were in favour of the abolition of the Office. They proceeded merely on the question of principle which was then before them. But at the present day Irish Members had very much stronger and more pressing reasons which induced them to oppose not only the Office of Chief Secretary itself, but its present occupier, and to desire its complete abolition. If the English people were wise they would, he thought, insist upon the present holder of the Office being relegated to some post in their own country, where he would not be able to accomplish the amount of harm which he had been doing in Ireland. He was sure he was not exaggerating when he said that there had never been a statesman since the time of Castlereagh who had helped to make
  1434
  the British connection so hateful to the people of Ireland as it had now become under the present Chief Secretary; and the amount of animosity, hatred, and irreconcilable opposition that the right hon. Gentleman had caused in the minds of the great majority of the Irish people towards the British connection was such as would require many years to wipe away. But it had been said by some that the present Chief Secretary for Ireland entered upon his Office with the very best intentions. He did not seek to judge of the intentions of any man, and it was perfectly impossible to fathom the mind of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but the right hon. Gentleman must and would be judged according to his acts, and it was a fact that not only had he assumed, in the discharge of the more painful and more important duties of his Office, a bearing towards the Irish people which had excited an amount of enmity and opposition, but in his dealings with deputations that had waited upon him in connection with subjects of very great importance to the different sections of people in Ireland, his bearing had been so flippant and off-handed that the members of the deputations often retired disgusted and indignant. But supposing that the Chief Secretary had merely carried out the commands of his Colleagues—because, of course, the Lord lieutenant was a man of no authority; not being a Member of the Cabinet he was obliged to refer to it in all cases, and it was hardly possible to discover whether the Chief Secretary was superior or subordinate to him. The right hon. Gentleman had signed a number of warrants for the committal to prison of a number of innocent men in Ireland under circumstances of such a character that, were there nothing else against him than the way in which that power had been exercised, it would in itself be quite sufficient to justify Irish Members in opposing everything in the shape of a Vote of public money for any purpose connected with the Chief Secretary's Department. The way in which those warrants had been issued; the character of the men who had been arrested; the mode in which the arrests had been made; and the monstrously unjustifiable proceedings that had been taken under the Coercion Act in connection with those warrants, were such as must necessarily breed in 500 cen-

  1435
  tres throughout Ireland, where before there had existed the most patriotic ardour, the most rebellious feelings against the Crown and the Administration. That was part of the Chief Secretary's work. He might, perhaps, be thought to speak on this subject with a certain amount of personal feeling, because it had been alleged that a warrant had been issued for his own arrest. He had never seen the warrant, and he was not aware of his own knowledge that it was in existence; but he had been told that he was charged with being reasonably suspected of treasonable practices. He did not know anything about that; but he was sure that if a warrant had been signed charging him with treasonable practices, that warrant was a lie, and nothing would ever induce him to believe that anyone could sign it without knowing that it was a lie. Therefore, knowing that many men as innocent as himself of treasonable practices had been arrested in Ireland under warrants of the same character, and believing that a large number of persons had been so deprived of their liberty without the least colour or ground of justification, he said, under those circumstances, it would be impossible for him ever to assent, as a Member of that House, to the voting of public money in respect of any Office with which such a man as the Chief Secretary was connected. He therefore trusted his hon. Friends would accompany him into the Lobby in opposition to the Vote.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANalso opposed the Vote. He observed there was a sum of £900 under this Estimate which represented a charge of about £2 for each of the warrants issued against "suspects" in Ireland. He would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, before the present discussion came to an end, whether there was any truth in the allegation that he had sent blank warrants for the arrest of "suspects" to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, or other magistrates in Ireland. He felt it his duty to oppose this Vote as a protest against the conduct of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had in prison at the present time, under the operation of the Coercion Act, a number of gentlemen, of whom he might say that he believed them to be as innocent of treasonable practices as was the hon. Member who had just
  1436
  spoken, and who had spoken the truth. The hon. Member for Queen's County had spoken the truth in denying that he had been guilty of treasonable practices, and who would venture to contradict him, or come forward and prove his guilt? He challenged the Government to do this; and it was well known that if the hon. Member for Queen's County were guilty of treasonable practices, he could be arrested, as any man could be in England, as well as in Ireland. But how had the charges of treasonable practices been made out against the gentlemen who were in prison? He had listened the other night with considerable interest to the best excuse the Government were able to make for them. They admitted that there was nothing in the text of the speeches of those gentlemen that could justify their arrest; but, said the Attorney General for Ireland—"You must read between the lines;" and the Chief Secretary, alluding to a sentence or two that had been spoken, said—"It looks innocent enough, but we must see what is meant by it." And it was upon his own forced and unreasonable construction of the language employed that he sought to arrest gentlemen on what he called reasonable suspicion, and keep them many months in gaol. Against such a procedure as that Irish Members were bound to protest. They were bound, to the utmost of their ability, to refuse to pay salaries to gentlemen who did this atrocious work in Ireland. Throughout the whole of the discussions which had taken place upon the subject of these arrests, he had heard no defence of the policy and action of the Government that would pass muster in any fair and impartial Assembly, although the so-called defence which had been put forward in that House had passed with a number of hon. Members, who were bound to the Government by Party ties. The policy of the Government might be consistent with the feelings of Liberal Gentlemen, but it was not so with the feelings of Irish Members; nor was it consistent with what was fair and just to the people of the country. Irish Members were compelled by a sense of duty to oppose this, and all such Votes, to the full extent of their power; and he should, therefore, cordially support his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County in his opposition to the Motion,
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I merely rise for the purpose of making two explanations, or, rather, of contradicting two statements. There is absolutely no foundation for the statement that blank warrants have been issued. The hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Sullivan) seems to be under the impression that this Vote is for an increase of salary to the Chief Secretary. That is not the ease.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, the Irish Members on those Benches felt it their duty to offer opposition to this Vote for two reasons, perfectly distinct from each other. The first of these was that they desired to enter a protest against the system under which Chief Secretaries for Ireland were appointed at all; and that reason was in itself, to his mind, entirely sufficient. But there was also the ground for opposition alluded to by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor)—namely, that every one of his hon. Colleagues had cause to believe that in the conduct of his duties in Ireland the present Chief Secretary—of course, when he spoke of him he spoke of his subordinates in Office also—had been guilty of gross negligence on matters of the very gravest importance. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) mentioned a suspicion in his mind that Irish Members on those Benches did not represent the Irish people. He (Mr. Redmond) would like to appeal, if he could, from the hon. Member for Southwark to other hon. Members in that House, who probably knew at least as much as the learned Professor about Ireland and its people, because he was convinced that there was not an Irishman on the opposite Benches who would deny that the Party with whom he had the honour to act did represent the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland. Was not the election for the County of Meath evidence of the force of the opinions which they represented in that House?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member for New Ross that we are discussing a Vote for the Department of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and not the state of political feeling in Ireland.
  MR. REDMONDsaid he was endeavouring to combat the idea that the Irish Members, in making these protests, did not represent the opinion of the people
  1438
  of Ireland. If he was out of Order in that course he would desist.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already reminded the hon. Member that the Vote is for the Chief Secretary, and does not refer to the recent election.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, he would pass from that matter, merely observing that they had had strong evidence within the last few days——
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSrose to Order, and asked whether the authority of the Chair was to be disregarded?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have not yet heard what it is the hon. Member intends to say.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, he was about to say, when he was interrupted, that he would pass from that line with the single remark that there had been evidence within the last few days that the course they were taking in opposing the Vote for the Chief Secretary was a line of action supported by public opinion in Ireland. That was a statement which he thought he was in Order in making; and he thought if hon. Members opposite would be a little patient, and not interrupt other hon. Members, they would expedite the progress of Business. The first reason for protesting against this Vote was a desire to protest against a system utterly rotten and unsound—a system of government, whereby the men who were responsible for the government of Ireland were in no sense responsible to the people of Ireland; a system whereby the right hon. Gentleman who governed Ireland was in no sense responsible in the slightest degree to the people; a system whereby the people were ruled, not in accordance with their wishes, which was the correct definition of representative government, but in direct opposition to their wishes and to the wishes of their elected Representatives in Parliament. That was one reason why they objected to this Vote. The other reason for objecting was that they had evidence, which they could adduce, that the right hon. Gentleman, in the administration of half his duties in Ireland—namely, the carrying out of the Coercion Act, had been guilty of gross neglect, and of gross violations of the pledges he solemnly gave in that House. There were many things in connection with the administration of the Coercion Act which could be alluded to as reasons

  1439
  why the Irish Members could not countenance any extra Vote for the Chief Secretary or his subordinates. Mention had been made of the issue of warrants. Less than three weeks ago a warrant was issued for the arrest of his (Mr. Redmond's) brother. A copy of that warrant had been sent to him, and in that warrant his brother was described as "Redmond "—without any initials—"of Liverpool"—a place where he had never been. Was not that an evidence that the right hon. Gentleman had been guilty of a gross violation of the pledge he and his Colleagues gave, that they would investigate every individual case? In Common Law he had no doubt that warrant would be utterly invalid, and he believed that if he chose to have a motion made in the Court of Queen's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus he could have his brother released. Of course, his brother would be re-arrested under a good warrant; but he would rather his brother should rot in prison than take advantage of any such technicality. [A laugh.] The hon. Member (Mr. Thorold Rogers) might laugh, and no doubt it was consistent with the hon. Member's ideas of decency to laugh at such a matter; but he would tell the hon. Member, and other English Members, that the Irish people had as great a contempt for their laughs as it was possible to have. They cared nothing for these jeers and laughs, and the only effect of them was to intensify that feeling of disaffection which was spreading in Ireland, and which the Chief Secretary and his officials had been working to deepen and strengthen. This case of his brother's was one matter connected with the issue of warrants, and he was certain there were many other cases of equally gross negligence; and he would like the right hon. Gentleman, or someone else on the Treasury Bench, to give some explanation of the issue of a warrant for taking away a man's liberty, in which the man was described in that vague way—without any initials, and as of Liverpool, where he never had been. Then there were other matters. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the issue of these warrants. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER assented.] He was glad to know that was the case, for he was anxious to keep in Order, if possible. A number of his friends in the county of Wexford had been arrested under war-
  1440
  rants issued by the right hon. Gentleman, and he would mention, as one instance, the case of a highly respectable gentleman, named Ennis, who lived 10 miles from the nearest railway-station. His house was surrounded, at 10 o'clock one night, by policemen; after a delay of only a few moments, he was put on an outside car and driven about along country roads and bye lanes from one station to another, until half-past 7 the following morning. The reason alleged for this, when he protested, was that some demonstration of public sympathy or enthusiasm might arise if it were known where he was. Why the police did not arrest him an hour before there was a train and take him straight to the station, he (Mr. Redmond) could not tell; but, instead of that, he was driven about on an outside car, on a cold, wet night, till half-past 7 in the morning, and received no food until half-past 1 o'clock, when he was lodged in Kilmainham Gaol. Was not that a brutal exercise of arbitrary power? The obvious answer of the right hon. Gentleman would be that he was not responsible for these details; but these were details which closely touched the friends of the victims of this barbarous administration of the Coercion Act, and the right hon. Gentleman was the only person in the House who was responsible for the execution of these warrants. Then there were other things. A few days ago, he asked a Question in the House with reference to the release of a gentleman named Mahon, of New Ross. Why, although that gentleman was unconditionally released from Kilmainham Prison, the Sub-Inspector of New Ross had called upon him and told him that unless he left the country within a week he would be re-arrested? He had been released because his life was in danger; because the doctor of the gaol, Dr. Carte, and Dr. Kenny had united in a Report that prolonged imprisonment would almost certainly sacrifice his life. He was released; but his health continued bad, for he was not suffering from some temporary ailment, but from lung disease, and he was as ill three weeks after his release as when he was released. He took no part in the proceedings of the Land League, although, in the discharge of his duties as a reporter to a Wexford newspaper, he attended certain Laud League meetings, sheriffs'

  1441
  sales, and evictions. Yet, for earning his livelihood in the only possible way, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he had been guilty of action in connection with the Land League. That was a cruel and wanton act, and the effect had been this—his ailment having been intensified by imprisonment, his friends told him when he left Kilmainham Gaol that he should leave that climate. He made arrangements for starting for Australia on the 9th of March; but, although this was known to the police—for a clergyman in the place had told them—he was told that unless he left the country at once he would be re-arrested. The result of that was that he was obliged to leave Wexford hurriedly, without time to make his preparations, for he was liable at any moment to re-arrest, which, to him, would have meant the grave. He (Mr. Redmond) had no desire to raise trivial matters in the House, or to carp at the right hon. Gentleman; but he was there to express his conviction—a conviction which he knew was shared by his constituents—that there never had been a Chief Secretary who had done more harm to the English connection with Ireland than the present Chief Secretary. [Dissent.] Did hon. Members who dissented from that sentiment imagine for one moment that the 500 men who had been arrested would come out of prison more loyal than when they went in? Did they imagine that the friend sand relatives of those men would be more loyal to the British connection after seeing honourable and upright men dragged away like felons and lodged in prison cells? The right hon. Gentleman had not only done harm to the British connection; but, although it was a matter scarcely worth referring to, he had utterly ruined his own reputation. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members probably objected to that statement, because they thought the right hon. Gentleman never had a reputation to destroy. He was under the impression, when the right hon. Gentleman went to take the reins of power in Ireland, that he had a reputation as a fair-minded, honest, and capable statesman. He now had the reputation, so far as the Irish people were concerned—and he (Mr. Redmond; cared not so much for the opinion of the majority of that House—of a dishonest politician.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has no right to impute dishonesty to any Member of this House.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, he would, of course, withdraw the expression; but what he meant by dishonesty was the violation of pledges given to the House. In that sense he was regarded as a dishonest politician; he was regarded, moreover, as an unjust man who had taken advantage of power which had been placed in his hands for mean and petty purposes, and had used that power in an arbitrary and cruel manner; and, so far as Ireland was concerned, he had proved himself an utterly incapable man. No Chief Secretary of Ireland had ever brought the country into such an inextricable state of confusion as the right hon. Gentleman had. So long as the right hon. Gentleman left the Land League alone, the League had in no way created any confusion. He had read a few minutes ago a quotation from the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the second reading of the Coercion Act, in which he said the effect of the Act was being felt in Ireland before it was passed, and that the outrages were diminishing because the Act was coming into play, and the Leaders of the Land League were using all the power they possessed to put down outrage. Those were the words the right hon. Gentleman used; and if outrages had since taken place, and the hatred of England had been intensified, that was all to be laid at the door of the right hon. Gentleman, who was a weak, dishonest, incapable statesman.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already informed the hon. Member that the application of the word "dishonest" to a Member of this House is un-Parliamentary. I call upon him to withdraw it.
  MR. REDMOND: I at once withdraw it. I only used the word in the sense I stated.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do not rise, Sir, to make any personal defence. If my reputation cannot take care of itself I shall not attempt to sustain it. The hon. Member says no other Irish Chief Secretary has done more harm than I have. There is no Irish Secretary who ever had the task of the present Irish Secretary to perform. There is no Irish Secretary who has Lad to contend with such a number of Members of Parliament

  1443
  and other men of influence who are doing all that is in their power to keep up a conspiracy against law and order.
  MR. ARTHURE O'CONNORrose to Order, and asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in charging Members of the House with combining to keep up a conspiracy against law and order?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Forster.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am quite content with my statement as to the attitude of Members of this House. That is all I wish to say with regard to the attack and remarks of the hon. Gentleman on the general question. Already in this Session this subject has been debated, and probably will be debated again; but there are two or three special remarks of the hon. Member to which I wish to allude. First, it is true—and I am sorry for it—that in the performance of what I considered to be our duty in carrying out the Act, we have had to arrest the brother of the hon. Member. The hon. Member says there is a technical mistake in the warrant as to his brother's previous residence. As to that I cannot speak; but I can say that the grounds for the arrest were most carefully considered, and I believed we should have had no justification for not making the arrest. The hon. Member alludes to two other cases. I wish to state—and I appeal to the Committee whether it is not so—that it would be impossible for me, or anyone, to be ready with answers upon cases without any Notice. No Notice was given of any Question with regard to the arrest of the person named Ennis; and my obvious answer to this case is that I know nothing of the circumstances of the arrest. I do not admit the correctness of the hon. Member's account of the matter; but if he will give Notice of a Question, and give me reasonable time to obtain information, I shall be ready to answer him. The other case is that of a man named Mahon, who, the hon. Member says, was released because his life was in danger, and who has been obliged to leave the country. It is an exaggeration to say that his life was considered to be in danger; but his health was such that we thought it desirable to release him. I do not expect hon. Members to give me credit for this assertion; but I am sure no person in my position
  1444
  could have listened more to statements of ill-health than I have, and if I have erred, it has been in giving too much attention to these statements. We had reason to believe that this person was returning to the course he had previously followed, and we had our idea of his ill-health somewhat shaken by the fact that he could walk seven or eight miles without any difficulty immediately after his release.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, he wished to read the passage in the Chief Secretary's speech to which he had alluded. On the second reading of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act the right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said—
  "Already, I say, we see signs of a diminution in the number of outrages. The improvement at first was only slight; but the outrages are now becoming smaller in number every day. And why are they diminishing? I believe there are two reasons for it. One is that the Gentlemen at the head of the Land League are using every power they possess to put a stop to outrages."—[3 Hansard, cclvii. 1230.]
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he thought the Attorney General for Ireland or the Solicitor General for Ireland might inform the Committee whether or not the warrant under which the hon. Member's brother had been arrested was a defective warrant; and whether it was not the fact that instances were to be found in which men about to be apprehended on warrants which did not give their Christian names had killed those attempting to arrest them, and had been held to be justified in doing so?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the warrant was a perfectly good one for technical purposes; and he believed it contained, besides the name Redmond, the aliases Munroe and Boyd.
  MR. REDMONDdenied that statement, for he had a copy of the warrant, and it did not contain those names.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)replied that, according to his impression, those aliases were in the warrant, and those were the aliases by which the person was known.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought he might draw the attention of the Committee away from these rather heated questions, which did not seem to him to be suitable for discussion at that moment, to some points

  1445
  more directly connected with the actual expenditure of money in Ireland. He observed in this Vote for the Office of the Chief Secretary a point upon which he would like to ask a question. He did not know whether the Committee and the Chief Secretary would think him hypercritical; but he wished to know whether precedent had been followed in heading this Vote—"Chief Secretary for Ireland." He did not believe that the title "Chief Secretary for Ireland "had ever before been used in a public document. The title had always been "Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant." There was much more in that than people might suppose. If it was proposed to abolish the Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the title in the Vote might be correct; if not, his question was not superfluous, and he supposed the Government had some reason for making the change. Then there was an item of £900 in the Vote for additions to the staff of the Office, and for some extra expenditure which had been sanctioned by the Treasury consequent on an important increase of business. He had paid a visit to Ireland in the winter, and he was then informed on authority, which he believed to be good, that an officer of the Guards—Mr. Ross, of Bladensburg—had been appointed Military Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. If that was so he wished to know on "what precedent such an appointment had been made, because he was prepared to maintain that never before, since the Union, had the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant required such an officer; and he was, moreover, prepared to maintain that the Office of Military Secretary to the Chief Secretary was one altogether abnormal in its character. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had absolutely nothing to do with the movement of troops in Ireland. He had no control over them, and properly no relations with the Forces; and if any functionary in Ireland was to have a Military Secretary it was the Lord Lieutenant, who was at the head of the troops in Ireland. He could not conceive on what ground the Chief Secretary appointed Mr. Ross Military Secretary without first of all coming to Parliament for its sanction. It was a totally new office, and was one calculated to put aside the authority of
  1446
  the Lord Lieutenant in military matters; in fact, this was an attempt to treat the Lord Lieutenant as a perfect dummy or ornamental figurehead, and to set up the Office of Chief Secretary as superior to that of the Lord Lieutenant. What he wanted to know was, whether Mr. Ross, of
  Bladensburg, was appointed by the Chief Secretary as his Military Secretary, or something analogous to it, in order that he might act as an intermediary between him and the Commander of the Forces? If so, what position did the Chief Secretary take up with respect to the movement of troops in Ireland? Were the orders for the movement of troops conveyed from the Chief Secretary direct to the Commander of the Forces, or were they conveyed, as they only could be Constitutionally conveyed, by the order of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? On that point the Chief Secretary was bound to give them information, because the appointment of a Military Secretary to the Chief Secretary was quite an innovation, and altogether altered the character of the Office of Chief Secretary. He also wished explanation in regard to another matter. The other day there was a letter in the newspapers, signed by a very well-known Irishman—Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald. He was well known to be an active member of the Property Defence Association; and in his letter, which had attracted a good deal of attention, he stated, as a fact, that it had been intimated to the Property Defence Association that evictions in Ireland, if they were to be carried out with the aid of the military, were to be carried out on a very large and comprehensive scale; that they were to comprise, if necessary, districts, townlands, or baronies; that groups of tenants were to be evicted, because it was not convenient for the military authorities to make great preparations and arrangements for the eviction of a single tenant here and there; that, in order to meet the great movement against the payment of rent, the Government of Ireland signified to those connected with the Property Defence Association that evictions were to be carried out on an immense scale, and that great numbers of people were to be simultaneously turned out on the roadside. The Chief Secretary ought to take the present opportunity of informing the Committee

  1447
  whether these statements were accurate or otherwise. In his (Lord Randolph Churchill's) opinion, evictions in Ireland ought to be judged on their merits; and he had always understood that the landlords of Ireland were anxious to evict those tenants who could but would not pay, and to spare, if possible, those tenants who could not pay on account of the distressed times. Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald alluded to a large number of evictions which were going to take place almost immediately in Donegal; and he asked what was to be done, or what preparations were being made for the actual sustenance of the 4,000 or 5,000 persons who were to be turned out on the roadside? If any intimation of the nature described by Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald, either directly or indirectly, had been given by the Government to the Property Defence Association, it was the duty of the House of Commons to criticize their conduct most severely, because nothing could be more cruel than that, for the sake of military convenience, innocent people should be punished with the guilty. If it was necessary to evict the dishonest tenant, surely it was not necessary, or even human, to evict the tenants who were honest, and who, perhaps, were only unable to pay by the circumstances of the time. He would not have drawn attention to this point merely on the strength of the letter of Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald; but he thought it right to tell the Chief Secretary that when he was in Ireland, after last Christmas Day, he found it was the talk of the Clubs—it was the talk of persons in official and in ex-official positions, and of many persons who were in a position to know perfectly well what they were talking about—that the Chief Secretary was anxious to induce the landlords of Ireland to ask him to carry out evictions on a very large scale. He did not consider he was doing the Government an ill turn in mentioning this. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite were premature in that expression. Positive statements to the effect he had stated had appeared in The Standard newspaper; those statements were made by a very prominent member of the Landlords' Defence Association, and the Chief Secretary was bound to get up and say whether it was the intention of the Government not to lend assistance to landlords who wished to evict tenants who, from their know-
  1448
  ledge, were certainly dishonest tenants, who were able to pay but declined to do so, unless the landlords were prepared, at the same time, to evict a large number of tenants who were not dishonest, but who were only prevented from paying by the necessities of the time? The Committee was bound to take notice of the matter. He was quite prepared to admit that never had a Chief Secretary so difficult a task to perform before; but he could not help noticing that all the great panegyrics passed on the Chief Secretary by his Chief and his Colleagues were generally coupled with insinuations of a more or less vituperative character against the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor. They were told that Ireland was being governed on strictly philanthropic principles; but he wanted to know, if statements of the kind he had quoted were made in the newspapers by Irish Gentlemen—if those statements were supported by the general assent and opinion of Dublin society—if evictions were being carried out in a manner which he could only characterize as barbarous and heartless—he wanted to know on what ground the philanthropy of the right hon. Gentleman rested? He objected to the assumptions of superhuman righteousness on the part of the Government, and especially when they were coupled with insinuations of superhuman wickedness on the part of their Predecessors. He hoped the Chief Secretary would notice the three points he had raised—the denomination of his Office, the appointment of a Military Secretary, and the support given to a wholesale system of eviction.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that, if what the noble Lord had stated was the prevalent impression in Irish society, he was not sorry an opportunity had been afforded him of explaining matters. He understood the noble Lord to say that when he came in contact with Irish society he learned that what he had stated was the fact. No doubt, he had learned a good many things; indeed, if the noble Lord believed all he heard, he must certainly have his head full of very strange and contradictory assertions. The noble Lord stated that he was informed that he (Mr. W. E. Forster), on behalf of the Government, had led the landlords of Ireland to believe that they would encourage them to make evictions wholesale, quite irrespective of the ability of

  1449
  the persons to pay their rent, and quite irrespective of the honesty or dishonesty of the tenants.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Yes; that is the statement in The Standard.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that was a statement he absolutely denied. He imagined that if such a report was prevalent it arose in this manner—that they found many evictions would take place; they found they would have to protect the civil authority in carrying out those evictions, and what he did do—he did not know he ever did it officially, though he made no secret of it—was to inform the persons who thought it necessary to proceed against their tenants that it would be much better if, after they had made up their minds to evict, they would act in concert, so that they could with the least expenditure of force support them. He thought they were perfectly justified in so acting; their action was justifiable from an economical point of view; it was justifiable in the interest of the preservation of order and of mercy. ["Oh!"] Yes, as an act of mercy. It was their duty to support the force of the law; it was also their duty to do it with the least chance of the destruction of life. That it should be done with the least chance of the destruction of life an overpowering force must accompany the sheriff; and it would be almost impossible to send an overpowering force unless there was some kind of previous arrangement as to when, and how, and where it should be sent. His action could never be interpreted to mean that they encouraged landlords to take proceedings where they did not wish; it could not mean that they encouraged the landlords to take proceedings against those whom they had better let alone; it did not mean they were to take proceedings indiscriminately against the honest and the dishonest. What his action really did mean was that if the landlords were determined to carry out evictions they must let the Executive know when and how they proposed to do it, so that if there were two or three landlords in one district one force would suffice for all the cases. That was the line they took, and they were quite justified. The noble Lord had spoken about the denomination of the Office of Chief Secretary. If lie would refer to the Estimates, he would see that a Supplementary Estimate was
  1450
  required to pay the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He hoped that would satisfy the noble Lord. As to Mr. Ross, he was appointed as temporary Assistant Private Secretary. The reason why he was glad of Mr. Boss's services was this—that they were obliged to make a good deal of use of the Military Forces in Ireland. There had, no doubt, been a great deal of exaggeration about the strength of the Military Force in that country. He had seen it stated there were 50,000 troops there; some people said there were 60,000; but the force really numbered under 30,000. The Chief Secretary and the heads of the Military Department had to be constantly in communication with one another. For instance, it was necessary to send a detachment of troops to a certain place, and it was desirable they should have some means of finding out where and the quickest and most economical manner in which that detachment could be lodged. They found that the two Departments, the Commander-in-Chief's Department and the Executive Department, could work better together, and that there would be a great saving of time and money if they engaged a gentleman for a short time to conduct this communication.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he did not think his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) had been altogether fair in his criticism of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He did not for a moment pretend to know so much as the noble Lord on many subjects which he discussed in the House—it would be absurd for him to pretend to do so—but on one subject he must say he did know as much, and perhaps a little more, than his noble Friend, and that was on the subject of Ireland. He had resided in Ireland for a considerable time since the close of last Session, and he was in Ireland at the time mentioned by the noble Lord. He visited several parts of Ireland and mixed in various grades of society; but he was bound to say he never heard one word from any single person in Ireland imputing to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary the policy mentioned by his noble Friend. He had no doubt that at the commencement of his term of Office the right hon. Gentleman did not perform the duties of Chief Secretary in a way in which many

  1451
  gentlemen resident in Ireland considered he ought to have done; but for that he (Lord Claud Hamilton) never for one moment considered the right hon. Gentleman responsible. He considered, though it was a matter of course of opinion, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and the two right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Birmingham (Mr. Bright and Mr. Chamberlain) were responsible for preventing the right hon. Gentleman performing his duties in a proper and efficient manner. But now the right hon. Gentleman was at last attempting to perform his duties in a thorough and satisfactory manner, and endeavouring to enforce the law and sustain the rights of property, he was really surprised to see the noble Lord below the Gangway coming down to the House and adopting the attitude towards the right hon. Gentleman that he had just displayed. They all felt the right hon. Gentleman had had a most difficult and most painful duty to perform in Ireland; they who lived in Ireland deeply sympathized with him in the performance of those many painful duties; and he (Lord Claud Hamilton) would always be prepared, when he saw the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the great opposition with which he was met in the House and elsewhere, striving to perform his duty to his Sovereign and his country, to give him his cordial support.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, if the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, he thought——
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, there was no doubt of it; he was the Member for Liverpool.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he believed the Home Rulers of Liverpool voted for the noble Lord. If the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool had ventured his strong contradiction of the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), of whom he spoke in so friendly a manner, previous to the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, there would have been considerably more weight in the contradiction. Unfortunately, the statement of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool just came one speech too late, and that speech was the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; for between the charge of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock and the indignant repu-
  1452
  diation of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, there was just as much difference as there was between a non-official and an official explanation of the same case. In all its essentials, in all its parts, the defence of the Chief Secretary confirmed the statements of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. The noble Lord stated that he had heard plenty of confirmation in Ireland of the statements made by Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald in the columns of The Standard—namely, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland objected to furnish military escorts to single landlords engaged in limited eviction operations, but that he was quite prepared to supply an overwhelming force, if only a considerable number of landlords would combine, and, by one huge act of Cossackism, clear a whole country side. That was the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself. The only defence of this co-operative policy started by the right hon. Gentleman was that he did it for the purposes of mercy, and to prevent destruction of life, and for economy, of course; but the latter, being a stock Liberal topic, he would reserve for some general observations on Liberalism. It was the opinion of the Chief Secretary that, if they went out with a considerable force in order to protect the civil power, and to evict whole country sides, there would be less chance of resistance than if they went with a weaker force to a single eviction. Let them suppose that, instead of evictions in the wilds of Ireland, evictions were to be carried out in an English town. He asked if it would not be more conducive to the preservation of peace to pick out, as the cases naturally arose, the individuals who were considered deserving of eviction than to wait until half-a-dozen streets could be cleared out with one fell swoop? The Chief Secretary's theory that there would be less danger to life and property, less danger of fearful rioting, less heartrending scenes, by the clearance of a whole district rather than by picking out isolated cases, afforded the Committee a pretty fair specimen of the whole power of the right hon. Gentleman's intelligence. Mr. Ross, of Bladensburg, whose official designation was T.A.P.S.C.S.L.L., or Temporary Assistant Private Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, seemed to be a sort of parallel to that Major Bond, the ornamental

  1453
  swearer, who was explained to be T.A.S.S.M., or Temporary Assistant Special Stipendiary Magistrate. Since the days of Alfred Smith, with whom O'Connell dealt somewhat irreverently, there had been no such creator of official nicknames as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Putting the explanation of the Chief Secretary along with the corroborative evidence of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool—for there could be no mistaking the corroboration contained in the tones of thorough satisfaction with which the noble Lord regarded the recent operations of the Chief Secretary—putting all those things together, they had a very fair explanation of the position of the new military assistant of the Chief Secretary. It was said in Ireland that whenever the Chief Secretary was applied to on any question, he always referred the applicant to his conscience. They had been greatly puzzled to know where his conscience was; and it now turned out it was represented
  by Mr. Ross, of Bladensburg, T.A.P.S.C.S.L.L. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had deserved, and had certainly obtained, the warm thanks of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool. Now, the noble Lord was a member of a family holding, according to the English law, large estates in the county of Donegal; and he (Mr. O'Donnell) could fully understand the satisfaction of the noble Lord that at length such a Chief Secretary had been vouchsafed to landlordism in extremis, because they knew very well how the "hard-up Hamiltons" stood in Donegal. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool had never appeared in the House in the character of a friend of Ireland; and he could assure the noble Lord that if a plébiscite were to be taken in the county of Donegal, the management of the Hamilton estate would not receive the universal suffrages of the population. If the Liberal Party were to endorse the statements of the Chief Secretary that he was influenced in his extraordinary operations by a desire to economize at whatever other risk, there could be no more lasting and permanent blot upon the reputation of the Party. He hoped there was not a single Gentleman on the Benches opposite who would prefer to vote for the increased expenditure necessary to carry out these evictions rather than have any part of the
  1454
  responsibility in stimulating the landlords to make a wholesale battue of miserable tenants for economical reasons; he hoped there were no hon. Gentlemen who would wish to show a saving on the Estimates at the cost of the tenants of Ireland. He fully sympathized with the protest of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock against the manner in which a slur was sought to be cast upon the humanity and the philanthropy of previous Lord Lieutenants of Ireland. He was not bound to admire the policy of Conservative Viceroys of Ireland; but of them, at any rate, it was to be said that within his recollection no Conservative Viceroys of Ireland had declared what Lord Cowper declared at Belfast only a few months ago—namely, that the Liberal Party had practically despaired of getting at the root of disaffection in Ireland; that practically they had despaired of remedying the evils of Ireland; and that now they were bent upon driving discontent under. To cover the wretched failure of their own so-called remedial legislation, the Government had been trying to drive discontent under. Let the Chief Secretary and the Prime Minister look to the great county of Meath, and see whether they could drive discontent under. The policy of Liberalism in Ireland was a sham, and all the efforts of a dozen Chief Secretaries, with a dozen military consciences of the class introduced to their notice that night, would be utterly unable to induce the people to believe Liberalism was a reality.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, it was generally a painful thing for Irish Members to listen to debates in the House on Irish subjects. Such subjects were seldom debated calmly, and still less frequently with perfect fair play. The attack which had been made that evening, in the hearing of both sides of the Committee, upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was most undeserved. The humanity of the right hon. Gentleman had been assailed, and they had been told he had no conscience; they had been told he was anxious to see properties in Ireland devastated, and the tenants turned out of their holdings; they had been told he was most anxious to have an opportunity of displaying a large force of military, so as to clear a whole county or barony of its tenants.

  1455
  All that had been asserted upon the strength of a letter written to the newspapers. He had not read the letter, but he was astonished to hear it emanated from Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald, and that he was acting on the part of the Property Defence Association. He did not think that many Members who listened to the attack on the Chief Secretary believed in its fairness. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) most properly reprobated the tone in which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) took up the cudgels for the anti-British party in Ireland, for the purpose of castigating his political opponents. He did not admire the position taken up by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), and he should never support it. Furthermore, he should never stand up at any time in defence of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, for he did not approve of it; but he thought, if there was anyone who had endeavoured to do his best to prevent the mischief that that policy had worked, it was the right hon. Gentleman who represented the Government in Ireland. So much for what he believed was thought by
  most right-minded men in Ireland. He now wished to allude to a few words which fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) with regard to the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool. The hon. Member made a most unwarrantable attack upon the noble Lord. Upon the tone of the attack he would make no remark; but he would say that the noble Duke, the father of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, held large estates, not only in the county of Donegal, but in the large county which he (Mr. Macartney) had the honour of representing; and he had never heard it even suggested by any human being that the noble Duke would require the assistance of Her Majesty's Forces to clear his estates. He did not know whether evictions on the estates were frequent; he believed not: but the noble Duke bore the character of being one of the best landlords in Ireland. His eldest son represented the county of Donegal for many years, and was only defeated by a narrow majority at the last General Election—the Marquess of Hamilton was not a Home Ruler, and therefore he was not returned. He re-
  1456
  gretted the personalities which had been employed by his countrymen, for he believed that if a higher tone were assumed in the debates on Irish subjects it would be more conducive to the welfare of the country.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, perhaps he might be permitted to say a few words with regard to the question of the salary of the Chief Secretary.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that it is not the question of the salary of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that is under discussion; but the question is that a certain sum be voted for the expenses of the Chief Secretary's Office.
  MR. BIGGARapologized for the error into which he had fallen. He had had occasion several times to make inquiries with regard to the treatment of the men imprisoned under the Protection of Person and Property Act; and he had always found that the allegations made in respect to the ill-treatment of the prisoners were contradicted by the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman declared that the majority of hon. Members believed his statements, in opposition to the correspondence he (Mr. Biggar) had brought before the House. Now, his correspondence was from friends, upon whose veracity he could implicitly depend; whereas the right hon. Gentleman sought his information from gentlemen who knew nothing about the facts, and had no means of verifying the charges made. The right hon. Gentleman sometimes was rather sharp in his attacks upon Members who sat upon the Irish Benches. On a recent occasion the right hon. Gentleman taunted him with being afraid to say in Ireland what he would say in the House of Commons. Now, there was one thing he had always tried to do—he did not know whether he had always succeeded—and that was to say in public what he dared to say in private, to say in one place what he dared to say in another. He was never afraid to meet the right hon. Gentleman on equal terms; but he was not disposed to fight him when he used loaded dice. The right hon. Gentleman had the power to put him into prison, without assigning any reason whatever; but he (Mr. Biggar) had no power to act in a similar manner towards the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman need only declare that

  1457
  he had been guilty of all sorts of crimes and misdemeanours to cause him to be imprisoned. The Chief Secretary professed to use the very greatest attention and care in scrutinizing the facts with regard to the political prisoners in Ireland—in regard to their committal to prison, in the first place, and, in the next place, as to how long they ought to be detained. If he was rightly informed, the right hon. Gentleman, when in Dublin, instead of properly attending to the performance of his duties, spent a great portion of his time in a certain gambling house in St. Stephen's Green, in the City of Dublin.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now imputing a crime to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  MR. BIGGARasked if he was to understand that the Chairman ruled that it was a crime, or the imputation of crime, to say that the right hon. Gentleman frequented the St. Stephen's Green Club, in Dublin.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman said the right hon. Gentleman spent a considerable portion of his time in a gambling house.
  MR. BIGGARwho rose amidst cries of "Withdraw, withdraw!" said hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side were so very noisy that——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman used improper language, which he must withdraw.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not know what he was expected to withdraw. Was he expected to withdraw—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The words which the hon. Gentleman is directed to withdraw are that the right hon. Gentleman spent a considerable portion of his time in a gambling house. [Cries of "Withdraw, withdraw!"]
  MR. BIGGARsaid, as soon as hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side had ceased their noise he would withdraw the expression that the St. Stephen's Green Club was a gambling house.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member did not mention the St. Stephen's Green Club; he mentioned a gambling house, which I direct him to withdraw.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he would withdraw the gambling house. What he wished to point out was this—that if the right hon. Gentleman would not spend so much time in the St. Stephen's Green
  1458
  Club, but perform the duties of his Office with that care which he undertook at present to do, they would not have so many cases in which a direct conflict would take place between the statements of the right hon. Gentleman and those of his (Mr. Biggar's) correspondents, whose word was as worthy of credence as that of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he believed he, a few moments ago, used expressions which were unjust and unfair to the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton). He by no means intended to say that the estates of the noble Lord's family were at all the worst managed in the county of Donegal; but, at the same time, he declined to concede they were what estates should be, and that the noble Duke and his family were entitled to be spoken of as model landlords. With regard to the nickname he applied to the noble Lord's family, that nickname was considered to be justified by the reckless magnificence with which, on many occasions, the family maintained their position in public. He was sorry if he had given any offence, and he hoped the noble Lord would accept this explanation.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he did not wish to receive any apology whatever from the hon. Member for what he considered the exceedingly unjustifiable language he had used, not only towards himself, but also towards his noble Relative. As an ample, complete, and absolute refutation of the charges which the hon. Member had thought fit to bring against his noble Relative, he should have the pleasure, in the course of the debate which was to take place next week, of reading to the hon. Member and the House an address, dated only two years back, to his noble Relative from those very tenantry in the county of Donegal to whom the hon. Member had alluded, and in which they characterized him as "the model landlord of Ireland."
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that when he conceived that he had done an injustice to the noble Lord he had made haste to repair his error. He did not regret that he had offered an apology, though the noble Lord declined to receive it. With regard to the management of the Abercorn estates——
  THE CHAIRMAN: The subject before the Committee is a Vote for the Office of Chief Secretary.
  MR. O'DONNELL: The noble Lord has challenged——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he had not heard that evening any explanation whatever as to what had become of the sum of £900 now asked for. According to the Estimates, copies of which were supplied to Members of that House, this £900 was required for what was called "a great increase of business.'' Now, that was a very wide statement, and he wanted to know what this great increase of business implied—what it meant. He was not concerned in the other large sum granted for the Chief Secretary's Office—£40,000 to pay salaries, wages, and allowances—but before he could consent to this extra expenditure of £900 he must hear some satisfactory statement as to how the money was to be spent. The Chief Secretary would do well if he would explain what was meant by the words "great increase of business." The only business which he (Mr. Finigan) had noticed had increased in Ireland was the business of cruelty, the business of tyranny, the business of eviction, the use of the Army, the use of the Navy, and a system which he was not willing to pay a single penny for, because he did not believe that the money was properly or justly spent. If this £900 that had been asked for had been spent in helping coercion he should vote against it in every division that was taken. He would propose that this sum of money be not paid, and be not considered for payment, until they had some satisfactory explanation as to the very wide phrase, "a great increase of business."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 224; Noes 14: Majority 210.—(Div. List, No. 23.)
  (18.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,410, be granted to Her Majesty, 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 Local Government Board in Ireland, including various grants in Aid of Local Taxation."
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the Local Government Board in Ireland was a
  1460
  Board which might be of the greatest possible use in promoting every kind
  of useful national enterprize in that country; but, unfortunately, it did exactly the reverse. Year after year Irish Members had brought forward complaints against the Board. No matter whether it was led by a Butt or a Parnell the Irish Party was practically unanimous in protesting against the action of this Department of the Public Service. The constitution of the Board rendered it highly objectionable. Last year one of its most important members was Colonel M'Kerlie.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The Lou. Member is, I think, is speaking of the Board of Works.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that instead of having Colonel M'Kerlie at the head of the Local Government Board they had an administrator who was about as competent as the Chief Secretary himself. The Board was entirely out of harmony with the people, and it always escaped examination, for even when it presented a claim for supplies it presented no satisfactory clue to the nature of its operations. He could only find items for salaries to medical officers, medicines, and so forth. When there was an increase of salary, of course they heard about it; but this was a fair specimen of the sort of account of its operations rendered by the Local Government Board. That which was called the "sub-head" was, practically, only a repetition of the details, and the details conveyed no more information than the sub-head. The Board possessed large powers, and claimed still further powers. It claimed extended powers over the medical officers; but there should be some guarantee that the powers of the Board over the medical officers would be used solely from the point of view of the efficiency or non-efficiency of those officers in the performance of their duties, and that the judgment of the Board would not be influenced by Party politics or Party spite. There could be no graver instance of the abuse of power by the Board than was exhibited in the case he was about to mention. There could be nothing more scandalous than that the appointment of a medical officer, whose work was solely one of humanity, should be made a Party matter, and that political vengeance should be allowed to have scope in such an appointment. The Local Government Board, under its

  1461
  President, the Chief Secretary—who had promised in that House that he would be careful not to use any powers in his possession for unnecessary objects, or with unnecessary harshness—finding medical officers "suspected," took advantage of that fact, and, contrary to the wishes of the Unions and the ratepayers, did all in its power to inflict permanent ruin on admirable and upright public servants, besides casting them into the bastiles of Ireland. What could be more undignified and less worthy than that the Chief Secretary should, under the Protection of Person and Property Act, lay hold of a medical officer, who was absolutely irreproachable in the discharge of the duties of his Profession, and, for political reasons, cast him into gaol, and then, having exhausted all his powers as Chief Secretary, bethink him of his powers as President of the Local Government Board, and, under those powers, complete the vengeance that he was unable to execute as director and administrator of a coercive policy? He would ask Members on both sides of the House what would they think here in England if, through a mistaken notion on the part of the Government, or through public need, a suspension of the liberties of the subject had been brought about, and the medical officer of, say, St. Pancras Union, was arrested and sent to gaol, and after he came out, with no stain on his professional character, the Home Secretary made use of other powers possessed by him to inflict professional ruin upon the unfortunate gentleman, insisting on the St. Pancras Board of Guardians dismissing him for life? That, he ventured to say, would be regarded here as an offence against liberty, and everything that ought to be regarded as inseparable from public decency. But that was what was being done by the Local Government Board acting upon the impetus, and under the authority—it was to be presumed—of its President, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. In North Dublin Union there was a medical officer, the people's doctor, a man of distinguished philanthropy, a man whose conduct had excited general admiration, who had especially distinguished himself for the devotion with which he had visited and nursed the afflicted during a terrible small-pox epidemic. Well, this gentleman, whilst in the discharge of his
  1462
  duties as a citizen, incurred the suspicion of the Chief Secretary, and was cast into Kilmainham Gaol. The Board of Guardians in the North Dublin Union were prepared to appoint a substitute recommended by the imprisoned medical officer for the three, or six, or 12 months during which that officer might be incarcerated on suspicion. There was no objection to the standing of the proposed substitute, there was no objection based on the ground of the safety of the health of the poor; but the Local Government Board sent down their sealed order, and insisted on the North Dublin Union permanently dismissing their medical officer, who had been thrown into Kilmainham temporarily, without trial, on suspicion by the Chief Secretary. Hundreds of letters had been written to the public papers by patients of the poorest classes who had been attended by this eminent and self-sacrificing physician praising his actions. He (Mr. O'Donnell) had read one of these letters from a poor woman, who stated how, in the small-pox epidemic, while she was lying unattended and uncared for, and while every neighbour shrank from the dreaded task of laying a hand on her to bear her to the hospital ambulance, or from doing anything which might spread the contagion to themselves, this man himself took up the patient, covered with festering wounds, and bore her in his own arms to the ambulance. This woman, remembering the apostolic care of a doctor—for the Medical Profession was an apostolate—wrote to the newspapers, reminding the public of his services on that occasion. Hundreds of letters from all kinds of people—from Home Rulers, Nationalists, Catholics, and Protestants—had been published with regard to this doctor, and in not one was there a word said against his medical or professional character. He was universally popular—respected by political opponents as well as by political friends. However, the Local Government Board persisted in dismissing him permanently; and how could it be expected that the Irish Members would let these Votes pass even for a necessary Public Department, when they found that the powers intrusted to the Department were used by the Government to add additional harshness to the harshness and cruelty of the despotic measures administered by the Chief Secretary—to fill up the little light-holes

  1463
  or deficiencies that seemed to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman to exist in that code of tyranny? These were the literal facts. The Local Government Board had endeavoured to do all they could to punish Dr. Kenny for the rest of his life. Could persecution be more mean, could the administration of a Public Department be carried on in a spirit more hostile, he would nut say to Irish nationality, but to British rule in Ireland? Imagine a Public Department in the name of Her Majesty being made the instrument of a mean and petty spite. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, if the Chief Secretary had been actuated by no mean and petty spite, had the right hon. Gentleman taken care to see that he was not made the pliant instrument of the mean and petty spite of some subordinate? Dr. Kenny had been deprived of the situation he had earned—of the situation he had honoured. He had been torn from the care of the poor, who trusted in him, and had been deprived of his professional income for the months that the deliverers of Bulgaria kept him in Kilmainham, and, having liberated him—being convinced of the futility of the charge on which he was arrested—they had made use of the Local Government Board to carry out the vengeance that the Protection of Person and Property Act did not enable them to complete. It was true Dr. Kenny walked about a free man; but the Chief Secretary had done all he could to make him a poor man for the rest of his life.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I wish to say a very few words to the Committee to explain how this matter really stands. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) states that Dr. Kenny was arrested on political grounds. I do not admit that. Dr. Kenny was arrested for being accessory to a crime punishable by law——
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: For being "suspected" of being accessory,
  MR. CALLAN: Read the thing correctly.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I will read the warrant as it stands. Dr. Kenny was arrested on reasonable suspicion of having been guilty as an accessory to a crime punishable by law—namely, inciting others wrongfully and without legal authority to intimidate divers persons, with a view to compel them to
  1464
  abstain from doing a certain act which they had a legal right to do—that is to say, to pay rent lawfully due by them—such crime having been committed in a prescribed district, and tending to interfere with the maintenance of law and order. It might be said that a person arrested under a warrant issued on account of treasonable practices is arrested on political grounds. But I deny that intimidation, or being concerned in inciting other persons to intimidate, and, in fact, to commit outrages, can be described as a political offence. There was no case which I more carefully examined than this one; and, after due examination, I felt that we had no alternative but to arrest Dr. Kenny. I should have been very glad to have left him alone; but we found it impossible to do so. Of course, while in Kilmainham, Dr. Kenny was unable to perform his duties as medical officer of the Union, and the Local Government Board had to assent to some person being put in his place. We had to look at the Act of Parliament, and the Act says the Commissioners may remove any paid officer whom they shall deem unfit for or incompetent to discharge the duties of his position. Well, it seemed to me that if we did not dismiss Dr. Kenny it would be the same thing as saying that we deemed him to be a fit person to be a Government official. The case lies in a nutshell. We felt we could not consider a man whom we had thought it our duty to arrest because we believed him to be a very leading person in the incitements to intimidation a fit person to be a public officer without stultifying ourselves. On that ground we thought we had no course left but to request and, in fact, order his dismissal. The hon. Member for Dungarvan says that was permanently depriving him of employment; but that is a mistake. The only difference was between our accepting what was proposed by the Guardians and allowing the appointment of a substitute; and the course we took is this—that, in the one case, the Local Government Board would have the power of vetoing the appointment; and, in the other, the appointment cannot be made without the leave of the Board being obtained. Hon. Gentlemen may ask why Dr. Kenny was released. He was released because I thought it right to ex-

  1465
  tend great consideration to him. His health was not good, and I believed it safe at the moment to release him. At the time I arrested him I considered it was not safe to allow him to be at large.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was as unsatisfactory as his answers usually were. In connection with Dr. Kenny's case, he wished to know why, if that gentleman was considered unfit to remain in the Position of medical officer to a Union after arrest under the Protection of Person and Property Act, Dr. Cardiff, of Carrickbyrne, Co. Wexford, had not been considered equally unfit? Dr. Cardiff had been arrested; but he had not been dismissed from his situation of medical officer. Was it not because some hundreds of pounds had been subscribed for Dr. Kenny and a furore had been created in his favour, the ecclesiastical authorities and many others taking the matter up and speaking of him in the highest terms? Was it not that the right hon. Gentleman did not dare to dismiss Dr. Cardiff?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The Act of Parliament under which Dr. Cardiff's case came did not require the Local Government Board to give an opinion whether or not they deemed him a fit person for the position.
  MR. HEALYsaid, it was quite touching to the Irish Members, who had had so much benefit of the right hon. Gentleman's disregard of the ordinary law, to see how nice he had become in his respect for the law. In one Act of Parliament he found the word "unfit," and that was sufficient for him to dismiss a medical officer who had never been proved unfit for his office. Another Act did not contain the word, and the gentleman whose case came under that Act was not dismissed. That could not be the real reason. Was it not rather because Dr. Kenny was believed to be high up in the hierarchy of the Land League? The right hon. Gentleman said that Dr. Kenny was not arrested on political grounds, because the warrant did not say so. But who had the making out of the warrants? Why, the Chief Secretary, who knew they would be challenged on political grounds, and made them out accordingly. He should like to know whether the dismissal of Dr. Kenny proceeded directly
  1466
  from the right hon. Gentleman or not? The Guardians approved the conduct of Dr. Kenny, and would unanimously have re-elected him; and, therefore, it was said the sealed document should be cancelled if Dr. Kenny would humbly beg to be reinstated. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary were discharged from the Cabinet, would he like to go to his right hon. Friend who discharged him with ignominy, and beg back his place in the Ministry in order to earn the salary; because that was the position in which Dr. Kenny was placed. Dr. Kenny, he was glad to say, would suffer no pecuniary loss. The Irish people had already made up to him several years' loss; and yet he was now asked to beg his reinstatement, hat in hand, from a disgraceful clique, when it was well known that no one better fitted to discharge the duties could be found. The dismissal of Dr. Kenny, he was sorry to say, was in entire keeping with the career of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. If the Local Government Board desired to reinstate, or to allow to be reinstated, this worthy and meritorious officer—and that he was a worthy and meritorious officer the Chief Secretary could not deny—let them do so unconditionally. Dr. Kenny was now released; and would the right hon. Gentleman have the generosity—would the Local Government have the generosity to cancel the sealed order?
  DR. LYONSdesired to make some observations upon the subject which had been brought under the notice of the Committee. He had the pleasure of knowing Dr. Kenny for a great many years, having had the honour to be one of his medical teachers. He had thus had intimate relations with him from the earliest period of his career; and from personal knowledge of him, and from long observation of his conduct as a student and practitioner, as well as the private knowledge he possessed of Dr. Kenny's character, he was able to say that Dr. Kenny was a gentleman in every way most estimable, of the highest personal qualifications, and of great zeal and devotion to his professional duties. He had acquired for himself a position of great popularity from the fearless manner in which he had discharged his duty, under very trying circumstances, during the small-pox epidemic, as well as upon other occasions. Undoubtedly, Dr. Kenny

  1467
  stood extremely high in the estimation of the general public, as well as in the estimation of those who were best able to judge of him in the city in which he lived and practised. He (Dr. Lyons) confessed that he had heard with the greatest surprise, and with very great regret, of the arrest of Dr. Kenny on suspicion, being immediately followed by the sealed order of the Local Government Board dismissing him from Office. He was bound to admit that he came at once to the conclusion that the Government must be in possession of some facts with regard to the complicity of Dr. Kenny in the Land League agitation, that involved him in some way in moral guilt, or, in some manner, placed him in the position of a criminal, and that in this or some other way he had rendered himself legally and technically incapable of fulfilling the duties of the office to which he had been appointed. He must, therefore, say that he fully entertained that view until a few moments ago, when he found the Chief Secretary had sat down without making any assertion of that kind, or imputing anything to Dr. Kenny except that he was arrested on suspicion. He must now add that the feeling and conviction he had entertained all along that the Government had made a serious mistake—a most serious, regrettable, and lamentable mistake in its effect upon the Irish people—in allowing the dismissal of Dr. Kenny by a sealed order to have taken place, had been greatly strengthened, and was now fully confirmed. It was a matter of popular rumour that Dr. Kenny had, in contravention of the trust reposed in him, when he was allowed to pass in and out of the prison of Kilmainham and visit his friends there, carried out that too well-known document—the "no rent" manifesto. But that matter had not been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary; and he took it from the silence of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject that he fully acquitted Dr. Kenny of that charge. He (Dr. Lyons) was also able to say that although he had carefully avoided any expression of opinion upon the case of Dr. Kenny while it was sub judice, because he knew that sooner or later it must come under the consideration of Parliament, and although he had been anxious to preserve a position entirely unbiassed until the
  1468
  matter came under his consideration in his place in the House of Commons, he certainly had taken means to inquire if there was any foundation whatever for the allegation, He had now to say, and he said it on the authority of the President of the Irish Medical Association, who personally sought an interview with Dr. Kenny—and it might be added incidentally that this gentleman was entirely opposed in politics to the views which Dr. Kenny held—be had it on his authority that Dr. Kenny had categorically denied that he had, in any way, had anything to do with that most regrettable and, in his (Dr. Lyons') opinion, most culpable and most unfortunate document. Dr. Kenny denied the whole of that charge in the clearest and most emphatic manner. Dr. Kenny was now discharged, and discharged perfectly free of charge of any sort. He had done no act of the kind imputed to him, and nothing had occurred of which the Government were cognizant to enable them to attach any charge of criminality to him; and yet it must go forth to the world that Dr. Kenny, after having been imprisoned under the Coercion Act and released unconditionally, was deprived of the high professional appointment which he had previously held. He did not question the right of the Government to arrest Dr. Kenny; but he did question their right, after arresting a man on mere suspicion, to fix upon him this permanent disability, and this great and serious loss in his professional prospects. Undoubtedly, it was a loss which could not be repaired to a man in Dr. Kenny's position. In the City of Dublin, where medical appointments were contested with such zeal, where there was so much competition for them, and upon the acquisition of which so much of a physician's future success in life depended, it was most important that a man should not be unjustly deprived of an office so important and so responsible—one that would necessarily bring him largely before the public, and one which was a sure and certain avenue to success in such a city. He thought the Chief Secretary was hardly fully aware of the force and incidence of the sealed order under which Dr. Kenny was deprived of his office. Dr. Kenny's position was this—he might be elected to an inferior kind of office—that of medical officer to a

  1469
  dispensary, but he could not—and he (Dr. Lyons) wished to impress this fact upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—he could not, until the sealed order was withdrawn, ever again fill the position of medical officer to a Union in Ireland. Yet the position of medical officer to a Union in Ireland was the next thing to that of medical officer to one of the great clinical institutions. It was a certain avenue to future success, and if a man were cut off from the possibility of occupying that position, a personal disability was attached to him in regard to the exercise of his professional functions; and, however eminent his abilities might be, a permanent blight was cast upon his future career. In regard to the technical bearing of the words "unfit and incompetent," that formed, no doubt, to a certain extent, a legal and technical question. It was all very well to say that they were idle words; but he ventured to affirm that until this case arose there had never been an instance in which a man's fitness for an office of this kind, irrespective of the fact that he might have been found guilty of criminality by the law of his country—there never was a case in which it had been held that such words applied to anything but his competence to fulfil, and adequately to discharge, the duties of his office. He believed that that construction was a most forced one—a most ungenerous one, and a most unfair one; and he would also add that it was a most unworthy one. He regretted very much indeed that the Chief Secretary should have consented to shelter himself under a technical, strained, and forced construction of words like these. He would even very respectfully ask the careful consideration of the Prime Minister to the observations which he had ventured to address to the Committee. He believed there was a very serious question at the bottom of all this. He had the honour to represent, and perhaps somewhat to influence, the Profession to which he had the great honour to belong. The Medical Profession was a great institution in Ireland. He believed that he was justified in saying that the Liberal Party were largely indebted to the Profession of Medicine throughout Ireland. They were a body of men of the highest independence, exercising a large influence throughout the country. They were
  1470
  men of the most generous instincts, and they had at all times been warm supporters of Liberal Governments. For his own part, he must say that any Government that would introduce this system of visiting political sins upon medical officers upon mere suspicion only, be it observed, depriving them of emolument, and of a position which was far higher than emolument, would be taking a very dangerous course indeed. The Profession was one which prided itself upon the sustainment of its independence. It was the pride of England that her Judges were independent of all political influence; the Profession to which he had the honour to belong claimed equal independence, and he hoped the day would never come when the exercise of Government influence would be allowed to interfere with the professional position and circumstances of any individual member of the Profession of Medicine. He had heard with extreme surprise the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland describe Dr. Kenny as a Government official. The right hon. Gentleman must surely have been under some misapprehension in making that statement, because that description could, in no sense, be applied to him. He was elected to his office by the free voice of the Guardians of the North Dublin Union, and his appointment was recognized by the Local Government Board, who had the general control over the whole of the medical arrangements in Ireland. Therefore, under those circumstances, he could by no stretch of language be described as a Government official; and, so far from any argument for his dismissal being sustainable from that point of view, the Government accepted or incurred no responsibility whatever in regard to any of Dr. Kenny's opinions, or the opinions of any medical man in the service. It mattered not what were the opinions of those medical men, provided they kept themselves within the law, and provided they did not make themselves amenable to any charge of criminality. He ventured to hope that even now the Government would take this matter again into their serious consideration. He could not but feel that the Local Government Board, for the members of which he entertained the highest respect, had acted with in judicious haste; why he could not say, but he thought their action might

  1471
  possibly have been prompted by that kind of honourable but overstrained zeal which sometimes bubbled up on critical occasions—a desire to aid the powers that be in carrying out their views in special circumstances. He wished to lay before both the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland the fact that Dr. Kenny had been already very seriously punished and mulcted in a heavy pecuniary fine, in estimating which it was necessary to take into account, not so much the amount of money that a professional man lost during the time he was unable to discharge his duties, but the loss of his professional practice in the future. Therefore, under the circumstances, Dr. Kenny had been very heavily mulcted and much more severely punished than another member of the community would be under similar circumstances. He thought he had established a fair case for consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Government whether they would not, as an exercise of generosity if not of justice, call upon the Local Government Board to undo the effect of the sealed orders, and to allow the Board of Guardians of the North Dublin Union to do that which they had shown the strongest desire to do, as a just compliment to the services of Dr. Kenny—namely, to replace him in the position which he formerly occupied, with so much advantage to the poor of the city, and with so much distinction to himself and honour to his Profession. Hon. Gentlemen opposite knew that, on many occasions, he had borne the brunt of much public opinion in supporting the Government in accordance with his conscientious convictions; and perhaps he might be entitled to appeal upon this ground also to the Chief Secretary to reconsider this matter, which was one of very much more importance than the mere dismissal of an officer—it was the imposition upon him of a penalty that would operate to the end of his life. He trusted the Local Government Board might be allowed to restore Dr. Kenny to his former position, especially as no charge of a criminal character had been brought against him, and because, in his belief, he was entirely innocent of any legal or moral criminality.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had spoken upon this subject with great
  1472
  moderation and feeling, which was probably due to his personal and professional knowledge of Dr. Kenny. But it appeared to him that throughout his speech he had entirely mistaken the grounds upon which Dr. Kenny was arrested.
  DR. LYONS: I did not question the arrest at all.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member had described the case as one which should not have been visited by any professional punishment. Now, it was an entire mistake to suppose that either Dr. Kenny or anyone else had been arrested merely on account of an opinion. The Government had reason for suspecting that Dr. Kenny was concerned in an incitement to intimidation in Ireland. The hon. Member would know that he could not give the grounds on which he was suspected; but he (Mr. W. E. Forster) could assure him that there was no case which he had examined more carefully, and he believed that at the time no arrest of the leading persons connected with the Land League organization could have been made without inconsistency had not Dr. Kenny also been arrested. The hon. Member said that no moral guilt attached to Dr. Kenny. It was not for him to charge men with moral guilt whom he had been obliged to visit with detention and hardship; but, at the same time, he was obliged to say that he did consider that there was moral guilt in a case where a man was concerned with an organization for intimidation. These being the circumstances of the case, could they, with any consistency, continue Dr. Kenny in an office which the hon. Member had said was not a Government Office, notwithstanding that it was one for which the Government were, by Act of Parliament, responsible. It was the duty of the Government to sanction the appointment, and it was their duty to cancel it in any case of necessity, and where the occupier of the office proved to be unfit. It was not merely a question of opinion one way or the other that was involved here. If Her Majesty's Government really believed that it was their duty to put an end to something which, if not stopped, would lead to outrages and intimidation throughout the country, having information before them, they would have been stultifying themselves had they allowed any person, whatever might be his professional capacities, to

  1473
  continue in office whom they had reason to suspect of incitement to intimidation. It was upon these grounds that Her Majesty's Government acted in the present case. He believed his hon. Friend rather over-rated the effect of the arrest upon Dr. Kenny's professional practice; but he would inquire carefully into the matter, and whether, or not that was the case, the Government had no desire to visit Dr. Kenny with any punishment that he did not deserve. They did not consider they had any right to punish people for expressions of opinion; but having reasonable suspicion in this case, they did not feel that Dr Kenny was a fit person to remain in the position which he occupied. Host certainly they would be glad to find that they were able to take away from him any disqualification; and Dr. Kenny's case should receive consideration, with the wish, on the part of the Government, of making the consequences of his acts fall upon him as lightly as possible.
  MR. CALLANsaid he rose to address the Committee under circumstances of a rather peculiar character. He was neither a personal nor political friend of Dr. Kenny; and he would mention the fact that when he (Mr. Callan) was a candidate for the representation of the borough of Dundalk against the nominee and supporter, he might add the nominator to his present Office of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Dr. Kenny exerted himself to the utmost to secure the return of the hon. Member who opposed him. But although he had no personal regard for Dr. Kenny, he would not allow any person to intervene between him and the discharge of his public duty; and he was bound to say there was no one who resented more acutely than he did the outrage which had been perpetrated upon that gentleman by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He was glad that the Prime Minister was in his place when one of the first of the misdeeds of the right hon. Gentleman was brought forward. What were the circumstances of Dr. Kenny's arrest and suspension? Dr. Kenny had been for many years medical officer to the North Dublin Union, in which capacity he had discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the Guardians and the Local Government Board. He would not detain the Committee by dwelling upon the high professional re-
  1474
  putation earned by this gentleman, but would refer as briefly as possible to his arrest. He believed that Dr. Kenny was suspected, or, in the words of the Statute, reasonably suspected of certain offences. Now everyone in Ireland knew right well that he was not suspected, reasonably or otherwise, of any illegal act, whatever with respect to the non-payment of rent. But in the eye of the Chief Secretary for Ireland he was Suspected of being the person who brought out of Kilmainham Prison the "no rent" manifesto. That was Dr. Kenny's offence, and for it he was dismissed by sealed order from his office of medical officer to the North Dublin Union. Now, he (Mr. Callan) recollected very well that not so long ago as 12 months, during the passage of the Coercion Act, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland declared in his place in that House that the Coercion Act was not for the purpose of preventing offences; it was to provide for the detention of offenders, but not for their punishment. But what had the right hon. Gentleman done in this case? He had punished Dr. Kenny as far as it lay in his power to do so. The opinion which he entertained with regard to the
  Office of Chief Secretary was that it should be filled by an Irish Gentlemen, and not by an English trader. ["Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cried "Oh!" but would any Gentleman on those Benches rise in his place and say that the Chief Secretary for Ireland should be an English trader? If so he would resume his seat. But how had this act of the right hon. Gentleman been characterized by those who were in a position to speak of it with knowledge of the circumstances. The Archbishop of Cashel said that—
  "Dr. Kenny had been deprived of his liberty without, as far as I can learn, any justifying cause, and a severe blow has otherwise fallen on him as a professional man."
  Mr. J. Burns, who voted for the freedom of the City of Dublin being conferred upon Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon, said—
  "The arbitrary conduct of that contemptible knot of British officials who ordered the dismissal and arrest of Dr. Kenny has awakened Irishmen to a sense of their duty."
  Mr. Robert Moore wrote—
  "The Government arrested him; they threw him into a felon's cell. They have gone further;

  1475
  they have done worse; they have committed a crime that cries out for vengeance; they have deprived him of his means of livelihood,"
  Another gentleman, a medical man, wrote—
  "The Local Government Board were not satisfied with arresting a most estimable, a most self-sacrificing and patriotic Irishman; they have still further deprived him of his position and income, for no other earthly object than financially to ruin Dr. Kenny because he dared to love his country."
  Would any hon. Gentleman say it was not punishment financially to ruin Dr. Kenny? Then there was a letter written by a Gentleman who the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade stated, in a speech at Birmingham, to have dissociated himself from the Irish Party because of his disapproval of their proceedings—the late Member for Meath. And what did Mr. A. M. Sullivan think of the conduct of the Chief Secretary with respect to Dr. Kenny? He said—
  "It was a piece of Ministerial vengeance," and he continued, "I take tog-ether the arrest of Dr. Kenny on one day, and his dismissal by sealed order on the next, as one of the meanest acts of despotism I have ever known in all my reading or recollection of modern history. His arrest alone, although without legal or moral justification, would not, under present circumstances, be so very surprising. But the action of the Local Government Board, even in this reign of terror, is one of shameless tyranny. The Department rush eagerly forward, not only to dismiss him, but they issue a form of dismissal incapacitating him for life from being elected to an office under the Local Government system."
  Mr. Sullivan then went on to say what he (Mr. Calian) fully endorsed—
  "Dr. Kenny made no speeches; he signed no manifesto; no indictment; no charge or allegation of legal offence that would stand five minutes' investigation in a Court of Justice could be laid against him."
  He begged the Committee to remember that this was a gentleman who had given his assistance in placing the present Government on the Treasury Bench. Mr. Sullivan continued—
  "He has been struck by an ingrate coward. Seeing all this and remembering it all, and knowing my friend as I do, my heart aches to think that his recompense from the so-called governors of his country is a prison cell in Kilmainham and a sealed order, rushed with angry malignity, to destroy for ever his future official career in the service of the people."
  Now, he remembered last year having
  1476
  an interview with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland—the only one he had ever had with him in private or public, except those which took place on the floor of the House—and upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman confessed his ignorance of his duties as Chief Secretary in a matter relating to the sanitary officers of Ireland. Dr. Kenny was arrested on the 25th of October last year, the same day that the sealed order was printed; and on that day also an officer of the Local Government Board ostentatiously went to the workhouse and asked if Dr. Kenny was on duty, and if not, why he was not on duty. What then become of the careful consideration of the Chief Secretary to the dismissal and the circumstances surrounding the case? Without speaking invidiously, he was bound to say of the hon. Member representing the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) that he had, up to that evening, preserved the strictest impartiality on the subject of Dr. Kenny's arrest; and, with the exception of what they had just heard from him, he had never expressed any views in condemnation of the acts of the Government. He confessed he did not think that was the attitude which the hon. Member ought to have assumed, either as a Member of that House, or as a member of the Profession to which Dr. Kenny belonged; and he thought it would be remembered both by the members of his Profession and by his constituents. He would now pass on to the letter of Dr. Robert Macdonnell, late President of the College of Surgeons, Dublin, who wrote as follows:—
  "89, Merrion Square, West,
  "November 1st.
  "Sir, allow me to in close a cheque for ten guineas, my subscription to the fund for Dr. Kenny. I offer it as my humble protest against an act done to a professional brother, as impolitic as it is unjust."
  He would ask the attention of the Prime Minister to this letter, because it came from a member of a family who had stood by the right hon. Gentleman for upwards of half a century. The name of Macdonnell in the medical world, and in the political world, was a name regarded with respect and veneration in Ireland. What else did Dr. Macdonnell say?—
  "I send this as my humble protest against an act as impolitic as it is unjust. I wish it to be

  1477
  distinctly understood that I never looked with favour on the Land League. No one knows better than Dr. Kenny himself that I never had any sympathy with its policy. Whether it be the land League or the Government that seeks to rule my country by a direct appeal to the base and selfish motives which actuate human conduct, I alike condemn it. I say there is little difference, in point of morality, between the adviser who says 'keep a grip' on what does not belong to him, or 'disregard the bargain you have made.' I condemn alike the conduct of the Land League and that of the Government, which inflicts a severe punishment upon an untried man. As I have said elsewhere, it is blunders of this kind that give life, vigour, and energy to a spirit of hostility to England. It is as one who would gladly see kindly relations established between England and Ireland that I deplore such blunders, and protest, as I have ever done, against them."
  That was what Dr. Macdonnell wrote; and Bishop MaCorrnack, in sending a subscription of five guineas, wrote—
  "The Local Government Board are the State protectors of the poor; their conduct in this case is infamous, and calculated to cause dissension between the two countries."
  Then he had another letter which might recommend itself to the Chief Secretary. The writer of that letter was no renegade to his religion; he was no renegade to his country. What did he say? He was an Irish Quaker, and he, whose name was as respectable as that of any man who ever belonged to the Quaker community, wrote this letter—
  "35, St. James's Street, Dublin,
  "November 3rd.
  "In closed I hand a cheque for £2, which kindly receive as a contribution to the Dr. Kenny fund;"
  and then he asked that the sum should be forwarded as "a testimony against the arbitrary action of the Local Government Board" in dismissing Dr. Kenny by sealed letter. That gentleman's name was Abraham Shackleton. Next he came to the opinion of Dr. Con-way, Bishop of Ballina, who sent a subscription, although he was opposed to the Land League. Another gentleman, who sent £10, wrote on November 15—
  "In thus subscribing it I wish it to be distinctly understood that I do so, not from any sympathy with the political principles which Dr. Kenny was reasonably suspected of having held, and the penalty of which suspicion he is now suffering; but entirely out of personal regard for him, and as my earnest protest against the high-handed tyranny of the arbitrary and unconstitutional act by which, after being deprived of his liberty on mere suspicion, he is
  1478
  dismissed from his appointment by the Local Government Board—an act which, for meanness and petty malice, is unprecedented."
  He was glad that that gentleman signed himself "A Conservative." Now, Mr. Abraham Shaekleton—who had written under a conscientious conviction, although the Chief Secretary, like all "verts," might treat his old religion with contempt—Dr. Conway, Dr. MacCormack, and the Most Rev. Dr. Croke had never, in any degree, identified themselves with the Land League; on the contrary, they had opposed it. Dr. Croke might have supported it; but his opinion, as a Christian gentleman, was entitled to respect. He (Mr. Callan) had thus given the opinions of Dr. Macdonnell, one of the most eminent physicians in Dublin, of a Bishop, a Priest, a Conservative, and a Quaker, all of whom denounced this act as a piece of mean and petty malignity. He had the honour of knowing the members of the Local Government Board in Ireland, and he was perfectly certain that not one of them had agreed to this sealed order on his own motion. Dr. McCabe was the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin; but his brother was a member of the Board, and he, at a meeting of the Guardians of the North Dublin Union, expressed his conviction that Dr. Kenny could be elected by any one of the 800 Unions in Ireland, "without that sealed order having the slightest effect." He (Mr. Callan) remembered seeing the Chief Secretary standing at the Table of the House and pledging himself that the Coercion Act would not be used for punishment, but for protection. But this sealed order was issued immediately on Dr. Kenny's arrest, and it was still in force, depriving Dr. Kenny of any similar office to that from which he was dismissed. That act on the part of the Chief Secretary was, in the opinion of the Bishop, the Priest, the Conservative, and the unconverted Quaker, a contemptible act.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member has delivered a very copious address, which in some parts took the character of an accusation against my right hon. Friend. The question before us is one of a personal grievance, and is a very fair question. Far be it from me to say that it is not a fit subject to be brought before the House of Commons; but whether it was necessary to go through the entire list of subscribers to this fund

  1479
  —it was, perhaps, not unnatural—and to describe in detail, and with much repetition, their characters and qualities is a matter for the hon. Member to consider. The hon. Gentleman has used his liberty in the House, and he knows what that amounts to. He has raised a question which has been raised before, and which is, undoubtedly, a material one; but I have risen with the hope of shortening the discussion by reminding hon. Members of what has already been stated in significant terms by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. It is stated from quarters entitled to respect and to some weight of authority that the sealed order of the Local Government Board has had, and still has the effect which my right hon. Friend disclaims—which he did not intend to produce, and which he had no reason to suppose would be produced. Recognizing that, however, as a new fact in the case, my right hon. Friend has plainly stated to the Committee that he is willing to revise the case with a view to ascertaining the exact bearing of that which has been done. In those circumstances I would put it to the Committee that it is far better that my right hon. Friend, and I, who am justifiably called upon to take an interest in the matter, should have an opportunity of examining the facts in the light of the observations which have been placed before us and the Committee. That is a process which cannot occupy any lengthened period of time. If the result should be unsatisfactory to Gentlemen who have taken an interest in the subject they will have an opportunity of re-opening the debate; but the occasion may disappear under the revision, and I would suggest that it would better for us to adjourn the consideration of this matter until hon. Gentlemen opposite are put in possession of our final views.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the Irish Members had no fault to find with the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, for he had treated this delicate and exasperating subject in a fair and reasonable spirit. The right hon. Gentleman had reminded them that a further opportunity would be available if it were necessary; but he (Mr. Sexton) would have been glad if the Law Officers of the Crown had not remained silent, but had informed the Committee what the effect of the sealed order was, and
  1480
  whether the office was still open to Dr. Kenny or not. He accepted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to wait for a further opportunity; but he hoped that in the meantime the Chief Secretary would consider the case in the spirit of the pledges he gave that the Coercion Act should be used not for punishment, but for prevention.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANwould not have said a word except for a remark made by the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman had said Dr. Kenny was reasonably suspected of intimidating and inciting people to commit crime and outrage. He wished to say that that was a gross calumny upon Dr. Kenny, and there was no person who knew him who would not say that he was a man of kind nature and disposition. There had been a time when the Chief Secretary had a heart to feel for others' woe; but he feared recent experiences had changed that organ. Something had been heard of the right hon. Gentleman's good deeds in old times; but they knew of his bad deeds in the present time. Dr. Kenny was distinguished in his Profession for courage and humanity; and it was known that at one terrible time, when few men would face the contagious disorders in Dublin, he went into the poorest places and kindly tended the patients, with an utter disregard of his own personal safety. In one instance he took in his arms the wife of a constable when she was suffering from small-pox, and carried her to a place where she could be properly treated. He risked his life by that act, and there was not a member of that mutual admiration society who occupied the Treasury Bench more incapable of crime and outrage than Dr. Kenny. The arrest of Dr. Kenny was not one of the most sensational acts of the Government; but in all their proceedings there was nothing that so much shocked the public sense of decency and fair play as Dr. Kenny's arrest and immediate dismissal. He was glad the Government had now given an intimation that they might do something to repair this unworthy act, which had shocked people more than any act of intimidation and tyranny the Government had practised under their Coercion Act.
  Question put, and agreed to
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,300, be granted to Her Majesty, 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 Office of Public Works in Ireland."
  MR. O'DONNELL MR. O'DONNELL moved to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: This is a matter of very limited character, and not likely to provoke much discussion. The Committee is placed in a very difficult position, and I hope we may proceed for some time longer.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORinquired how far the right hon. Gentleman proposed to go with those Votes to-night? There wore several contentious items, such as the charges for the prosecutions in Ireland, the Constabulary expenses, and other matters which the Irish Members could not be expected to go on with now.
  MR. GLADSTONE: We do not propose to take any contentious Vote of importance, and when we come to the Law Charges in Ireland we shall vote Progress.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought the Government had no reason to complain of the progress they had already made.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that, under ordinary circumstances, he should be disposed to agree with the hon. Members that no further important Vote should be taken; but the Government had promised an opportunity of considering the Irish policy of the Government, and he, therefore, thought it would be unreasonable to raise that to-night. This Vote did not afford the only opportunity the House would have, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman's proposal a very fair one—namely, that the Committee should go through the non-contentious matters, and when they arrived at an item which appeared to open up a subject of considerable debate they should report Progress.
  MR. R. POWERsuggested that the Government should agree to postpone this Vote, and let the Committee go on with the English and Scotch Votes.
  MR. HEALYstated, that on the consideration of the Law Charges he wished to raise the question why the Government did not seize The Freiheit in England, as they had seized United Ireland. He should, therefore, oppose any further progress to-night.
  MR. CALLANsuggested that the Votes with reference to the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, the County Courts, the Police Courts, Courts of Law and Justice, which were practically unopposed, should be taken, and Progress then be reported. That course would not obstruct, but would facilitate Business in every way.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought there was some misunderstanding as to the proposal of the Government. As he understood, the Government proposed to take the Votes as far as Vote 24 of Class III., with the exception of the Law Charges. If that was their proposal he would advise his hon. Friend to accede to it.
  MR. O'DONNELLreminded the Prime Minister that there were two contentious Votes, one of which was a charge for salaries and expenses in connection with the new system of loans to occupiers of land in Ireland. Then there was a Vote for Law Charges in England, upon which the question of the seizure or non-seizure of newspapers would be raised. With the exception of the Vote for Law Charges and that for Criminal Prosecutions in Ireland, the Government were perfectly free to proceed now, so far as the Irish Representatives were concerned. Considerable progress might be made if the Prime Minister would consent to the postponement of the Votes he had mentioned.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHexpressed his readiness to postpone the Votes in question.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,000, be granted to Her Majesty, 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 Law Officers; the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury, &c, &c."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, this was one of the two Votes they desired to have postponed. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had just pointed out that upon this Vote it was intended to discuss the prosecution of Herr Most and the whole question of the seizure of newspapers in Ireland. It was quite impossible to proceed with a Vote involving such important issues at such a late hour.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it was necessary these Votes should be taken on an early date. He was afraid if they did not get the Votes tonight they would either have to sit tomorrow or on Saturday. He would suggest they should sit late now.
  MR. LEAMYconsidered it unfair to expect them to discuss such important Votes at so late an hour.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the noble Lord had evidently not heard what had been said. It was upon the understanding that the present and another Vote be postponed that the Motion for reporting Progress was withdrawn.
  MR. CALLANsuggested, as a compromise, the postponement of all the Votes in Class III. To taking the Votes in Class IV.—namely, those for the Science and Art Department, London University, and the Transit of Venus, there would be no objection, unless it proceeded from the Scotch quarter of the Committee.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHconsented to the postponement of the Vote.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (19.) £3,825, Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice (England).
  (20.) £16,037, County Courts.
  (21.) £360, Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
  (22.) £2,000, Police—Counties and Boroughs (Great Britain).
  (23.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,573, be granted to Her Majesty, 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 Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland, and other Legal Charges."
  MR. O'DONNELLnoticed that provision was made "for payment of the ac-
  1484
  counts of Sir Theodore Martin, amounting to £2,449." He would like to know what those accounts were?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, this sum of money was spent in connection with the two disputed Peerage cases—the Annandale and the Dysart. It was necessary the claims to these Peerages should be carefully investigated, and this expenditure was incurred.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked if the claimants did not pay their own expenses?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the claimants were required to pay their own expenses; but it was matter of public policy that the titles to the Peerages should be carefully examined, and this involved expense to the State.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, they ought to take the sense of the Committee upon the question. It was a matter of the greatest indifference to him who held these Peerages, and therefore he should oppose the Vote.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he had intended to make a few remarks upon this Vote; but at that late hour he should simply content himself by supporting the Government. He trusted they would go to a division at once.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he should certainly support the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in protesting against the country defraying any portion of the expenses attendant upon these antiquated Scotch claims.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 30: Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 24.)
  (21.) £470, Register House Department, Edinburgh.

  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
  (25.) £7,400, Science and Art Department.
  (26.) £10, London University.
  (27.) £275, Transit of Venus.

  CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray

  1485
  the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."
  MR. LABOUCHEREnoticed that this Vote included a sum of £9,260
  "To meet certain outfits payable in the transfer of Lord Dufferin to Constantinople, the promotion of Sir E. Thornton to St. Petersburg-, and the retirement of the Hon. E. M. Erskine and other changes consequent thereon."
  It was one of the absurdities of the Foreign Office that new outfits were to be provided for Ministers whenever they went from one place to another. He did not wish to divide the Committee on the subject, but would take some other opportunity of doing so. There was, however, another matter upon which he was afraid he would have to ask hon. Gentlemen to go through the Lobby. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £2,700, which represented the expenses of the Marquess of Northampton's special Mission to Madrid, including the expenses of the Garter King, and the Earl of Fife's special Mission to Dresden, including the expenses of the Garter King. He could say a good deal upon this subject; but on account of the lateness of the hour he would simply point out that at Madrid they had a special Minister, and at Dresden they had a Chargé d' Affaires, and surely those gentlemen could have handed over the Garters to those distinguished persons who were honoured with them. He knew it was a very old custom to send Garters through a special Mission; but what did it amount to? It meant that a nobleman amused himself on the Continent at the expense of the public with the Garter King and other gentlemen of that sort. The nobleman did not get any benefit by the Mission, unless it was that he had his trip free of cost, and that he got some Order of the country granted to him. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not object to that; but what he did object to was the most expensive mode of sending a Garter by a special Mission, particularly when they had in the same country an Embassy costing £4,000, £5,000, or £6,000 a-year. They had an Ambassador of some importance certainly in Spain if not in Dresden; and surely that gentleman would be able to hand over, with all necessary ceremony, the Garter to the Monarch of that country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £18,160, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March l882, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  MR. BARINGsaid, he thought it would be well if the Vote were postponed, because many important questions were involved.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was not inclined to take exception to the Vote on the same ground as the hon. Member for Northampton, because he considered that when a special Mission went from this country as much pomp and ceremony should be used as possible; and he, for one, believed that these Missions were the means of much good. Perhaps the hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench would answer a question with respect to the additional outfits to Lord Dufferin. He thought he was right in saying that, so far as India was concerned, exceptional sums for outfits had been done away with. Having regard to the fact that the Viceroy of India got nothing for his outfit, it seemed rather extraordinary that Lord Dufferin should get an outfit upon his transfer to Constantinople. He would like to know what explanation could be given in the matter; and he would also like an explanation of the expenditure of £2,000 "consequent on the state of affairs on the Continent." That seemed a large sum to spend in telegrams, especially as there seemed nothing exceptional in the state of our foreign relations with other nations on the Continent.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he thought that if special Missions were to go they ought to be organized in a manner worthy of the country. But then the question was whether they ought to go at all, and on that point he was disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). There were some other items in the Vote requiring explanation. For instance, £2,000 was provided for the expenses of the Commission for the evacuation of territory ceded by Turkey to Greece under the Constantinople Convention of 1881. Greece had acquired considerable territory, and it seemed hard this country should have to pay £2,000 for the purposes of that accession. Then,

  1487
  again, there was a charge of £3,000 for the expenses of the Greek Boundary Commission. As the Commission was entirely in the interest of Greece, it did not seem right that we should have to pay this sum of money. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he put it to the Government whether it would not be better to postpone the Vote. The questions he had raised were questions on which it was desirable the Committee should have full explanation.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsad, it was evident the Vote would provoke a good deal of discussion, and therefore he would consent to its postponement.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (28.) £5,526, Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.
  (29.) £9,333, Treasury Chest.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to know, before this Vote was put, whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could tell him how the allowances for military officers in Hong Kong were paid. Were they paid or calculated in dollars or pounds sterling; and had any intimation been given to the Treasury of the injury inflicted on the officers by the system adopted?
  MR. BARINGwished to know the amount of the transactions in 1881, when such large losses were incurred.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he was unable to state the particulars asked for; but he hoped to be in a position to do so before the Report. The loss on the dollars themselves had to be defrayed from profit and loss. It had been occasioned by the necessity of sending out large sums to South Africa.
  MR. BARINGfailed to understand why the Government had sent out dollars. Surely there were much cheaper means of sending out money.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked why the figures were not given for this year?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that these transactions sometimes entailed a profit and sometimes a loss. It was not desirable to take an account of them before they were completed. The amounts now given represented the
  1488
  losses incurred in 1880 and 1881, not in the present year.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.
  (30.) £3,000,Super annuations and Re-tired Allowances.
  (31.) £258, Pauper Lunatics, Soot-laud.
  (32.) £350, Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain.
  (33.) £624, Commutation of Annuities.

  CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,145. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses."
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was afraid they could not allow this Vote to pass.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that, if there was any objection, according to the understanding that had been arrived at, he would not take the Vote.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (31.) £1,000, Compensation to Edmund Galley.
  MR. SEXTONsaid he had not a very distinct recollection of this case. If he was correctly informed, Galley was an Englishman, who had been found guilty of some criminal offence and sent to penal servitude, and whilst he was suffering penal servitude his innocence was discovered. It was a fact that a great many Irishmen who were equally innocent were sent to prison, and no compensation was awarded them. He should like to hear something in explanation of the Vote before he, for one, could consent to it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the case had been very fully discussed in the House on more than one occasion, and every statement that could be made about it had been made. It was the wish of the House itself that compensation should be made, and a decision was only arrived at after everyone had had an

  1489
  opportunity of expressing Ms view with regard to it. If a similar case to that of Mr. Galley were presented from Ireland, he was sure that it would receive the same amount of attention.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he quite endorsed what the hon. and learned Gentleman stated.
  Vote agreed to.
  (35.) £22,000, Customs.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry to he obliged to rise so often. This was a Vote which touched a class of servants of the Crown who had been very hardly dealt with. A reform of the system of administration in the Customs was about to be carried out; and a great number of men in the Outdoor Warehouse Department, who had hitherto been at work in the Office, and were accustomed to sedentary occupations, and not suited to exposure to inclement weather, were threatened with employment out-of-doors. This kind of employment would injure their efficiency and shorten their lives. He had a Notice on the Paper respecting the intentions of the Government with regard to these officials, and perhaps the noble Lord would give him the information he sought before the Vote was taken. The question was a serious one to the servants on whom was about to be put this quasi-outdoor occupation.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he had already answered one question very like this. Considerable alarm had been felt by a class of officials that they would have outdoor duties imposed on them. Though, nominally, these servants would belong to the outdoor system, their duties would continue to belong to the clerical system. It was the special request of many of the gentlemen themselves that, as far as possible, they should be employed in the Outdoor Warehouse Department.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he would remind the noble Lord of a Committee that had sat to consider the case of the out port officers. Did any sum come under this Vote in consequence of increased salaries paid to these officials, or did the noble Lord intend to give them increased salaries?
  MR. WILLSsaid, he did not wish to object to any portion of this Vote; but he desired to make one observation with regard to smuggling. There was a large
  1490
  amount spent annually on making seizures and checking smuggling. Of that he did not complain—indeed, he should not object if it were more; but he could not help thinking that there was sometimes not that amount of sharpness and alacrity exhibited by the officers of the Government that there should be. His remarks did not apply to all ports. In Bristol, for example, the Customs had shown the greatest watchfulness in detecting smuggling, and every protection was afforded to traders. Again, only a few months ago it happened that a large steam boiler was being conveyed through the streets of London. An accident occurred whilst it was in transit, and it was found impossible to remove it for some time; and whilst it was lying in the street it was found to contain some thousands of pounds' weight of tobacco. It was a source of satisfaction, of course, to think that the tobacco was discovered through the accident, as was supposed at the time; but in this case he was glad to know the Customs deserved every praise, for they had watched the tobacco from the time it was shipped at Rotterdam until it was seized in the street; and but for the breakdown they would have probably captured the receivers. The matter, however, was of such moment that he hoped that still increased protection would be given in connection with an important branch of the trade of the country.
  Vote agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £80,000, be grunted to Her Majesty, 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 Post Office Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post Office Revenue."
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he found considerable difference between the salaries paid to Postmasters in England and Scotland, and those paid to similar officials in Ireland.
  MR. SCHREIBERobjected to the Vote being taken to-night. The amount involved was too large to be dealt with at 2 o'clock in the morning. An explanation from the Postmaster General would be required on several points; and perhaps, after hearing the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he (Mr.

  1491
  Schreiber) might find it his duty to oppose the Vote. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would agree to class this among the "contentious" Votes, which. would not be pressed that night on the Committee.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, this was not a very considerable sum to ask for; but he should not think of pressing on the Vote if it was objected to.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, that, as he understood it, the sums of money not taken to-night would be required during the week. For to-morrow there was an important Notice in the name of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) that would probably occupy the whole of the Sitting; and it was therefore to be presumed that the Government would ask them to-morrow to meet on Saturday. It would be convenient that they should know at once whether there would be a Saturday Sitting.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it was necessary to have a great, portion of the money without delay; therefore he hoped the Committee would be content to sit late to-morrow.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  POST CARDS (REPLY) BILL.— [BILL 74.]
  (Mr. Fawcett, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he hoped the Government would not ask the House to go into Committee on this Bill at that late hour. It was read a second time the day after it was distributed; therefore it was clear the country had not had time to consider it. He had not opposed the second reading, because he had not thought that there were any important points involved; but when he had come to consider the details, he thought there were several questions which ought to be discussed. He would put it to the Postmaster General whether it was desirable to take the measure to-day?
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that if the hon. Baronet had any point to raise he would gladly consider it; but really the Bill was so purely a matter of form that at first he had not thought it necessary to
  1492
  proceed by means of a Bill. It had happened that in drawing one of the Post Office Acts it was said that not more than one half-penny should be charged for a Post Card. That provision, it was thought, would prevent a charge of 1d. being made for a reply Post Card, hence the present measure. The system it would introduce was in operation in Germany and Italy, and it seemed to him that it would be considered a public convenience in this country. If the hon. Baronet would suggest anything for his consideration he should be glad to entertain it.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that if it was the general wish of the House to take the Bill in Committee he would offer no opposition. He would point out, however, that they had only had three days to consider it.
  Bill considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  BOILER EXPLOSIONS BILL.— [BILL 4.]
  (Mr. Hugh Mason, Mr. Burt, Mr. Henry Lee, Mr. Broadhurst)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. HUGH MASONsaid, he would move that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair. His object was not to go on with the Bill, but merely to get it in Committee, and fix a future day for its consideration.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Hugh Mason.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS.
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the Contagious Diseases Acts, 1866–1869, their Administration, Operation, and Effect:"—Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, Viscount CRICHTON, Mr. BURT, Mr. O'SHAUGH-NESSY, Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Mr. COBBOLD, General BURNABY, Sir HENRY WOLFF, Mr. ERNEST NOEL, Colonel DIGBY, Mr. WILLIAM FOWLER, Mr. HOPWOOD, Colonel TOTTENHAM, Dr. CAMERON, Dr. FARQUHARSON, and Mr. HANBURY-TRACY:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  Ordered, That all Reports and Returns relating thereto be referred to the said Committee.
  Ordered. That it be an Instruction to the Committee, That they have power to receive Evidence which may be tendered concerning similar systems in British Colonies or in other Countries, and to report whether the said Contagious Diseases Acts should be maintained, amended, or repealed.—(Mr. Secretary Childers.)
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.