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 13s. 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 15s. 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 10s. 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.
§ MR. CHILDERSIt 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. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he was delighted to hear it.
MR. GLADSTONEMy 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. CHILDERSI hope the hon. Member will withdraw that expression.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANI 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. GLADSTONEThe 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. LOWTHERWhat 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. GLADSTONEIn 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 PERCYI 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.)