CIVIL SERVICES. (Hansard, 19 May 1882)

HC Deb 19 May 1882 vol 269 cc1190-224 1190

CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
Great Britain:—	£
Houses of Parliament	4,000
Monument to Earl of Beaconsfield (Re-Vote)
Public Buildings	15,000
Furniture of Public Offices	1,000
Revenue Department Buildings	20,000
County Court Buildings	4,000
Metropolitan Police Courts	1,000

1191

	£
Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland
New Courts of Justice, &c.	10,000
Surveys of the United Kingdom	25,000
Science and Art Department Buildings	2,000
British Museum Buildings	1,000
Natural History Museum	4,000
Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade	1,000
Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)	50,000
Metropolitan Fire Brigade
Ireland:—
Public Buildings	20,000
Science and Art Buildings, Dublin	1,000
Shannon Navigation	500
Abroad:—
Lighthouses Abroad	1,000
Diplomatic and Consular Buildings	2,000

CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
England:—	£
House of Lords, Offices	3,000
House of Commons, Offices	4,000
Treasury, including Parliamentary Counsel	5,000
Home Office and Subordinate Departments	7,000
Foreign Office	6,000
Colonial Office	4,000
Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments	3,000
Privy Seal Office	500
Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments	15,000
Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department)	3,000
Civil Service Commission	3,000
Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission	2,000
Inclosure and Drainage Acts Expenses	500
Exchequer and Audit Department	5,000
Friendly Societies, Registry	600
Local Government Board	10,000
Lunacy Commission	1,000
Mint (including Coinage)	10,000
National Debt Office	2,000
Patent Office	2,500
Paymaster General's Office	2,000
Public Works Loan Commission	1,000
Record Office	2,000
Registrar General's Office	6,000
Stationery and Printing	44,000
Woods, Forests, &c., Office of	2,000
Works and Public Buildings, Office of	4,000
Secret Service	3,000
Scotland:—
Exchequer and other Offices	1,000
Fishery Board	2,000
Lunacy Commission	500
Registrar General's Office	500
Board of Supervision	1,000
Ireland:—
Lord Lieutenant's Household	1,000
Chief Secretary's Office	3,500
Charitable Donations and Bequests Office	300

CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
England:—	£
Law Charges	10,000
Public Prosecutor's Office	600
Criminal Prosecutions	26,000
Chancery Division, High Court of Justice	20,000
Central Office of the Supreme Court, &c.	10,000
Probate, &c. Registries, High Court of Justice	10,000
Admiralty Registry, High Court of Justice	2,000
Wreck Commission	1,000
Bankruptcy Court (London)	5,000
County Courts	30,000
Land Registry	500
Revising Barristers, England
Police Courts (London and Sheerness)	4,000
Metropolitan Police	50,000
County and Borough Police, Great Britain	1,000
Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies	20,000
Prisons, England	40,000
Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain	35,000
Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum	2,500
Scotland:—
Lord Advocate, and Criminal Proceedings	10,000
Courts of Law and Justice	10,000
Register House Departments	3,000
Prisons, Scotland	10,000
Ireland:—
Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions	30,000
Supreme Court of Judicature	10,000
Court of Bankruptcy	1,000
Admiralty Court Registry	250
Registry of Deeds	2,000
Registry of Judgments	300
Land Commission	5,000
County Court Officers, &c.	10,000
Dublin Metropolitan Police (including Police Courts)	20,000
Constabulary	100,000
Prisons, Ireland	10,000
Reformatory and Industrial Schools	20,000
Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum	500

CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
England:—	£
Science and Art Department	30,000
British Museum	15,000
National Gallery	3,500
National Portrait Gallery	300
Learned Societies, &c.	3,500
London University	2,000

CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.
	£
Diplomatic Services	30,000
Consular Services	40,000
Suppression of the Slave Trade	500
Tonnage Bounties, &c.	2,000
Suez Canal (British Directors)	200
Colonies, Grants in Aid	2,000
South Africa and St. Helena	2,000
Subsidies to Telegraph Companies	9,000

CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.
	£
Superannuation and Retired Allowances	100,000
Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.	6,000
Relief of Distressed British Seamen Abroad	2,000
Pauper Lunatics, England	1,000
Pauper Lunatics, Scotland	20,000
Pauper Lunatics, Ireland	10,000
Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland	2,000
Friendly Societies Deficiency
Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain	200
Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland	200

CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.
	£
Temporary Commissions	3,000
Miscellaneous Expenses	500
Total for Civil Services	£1,277,750

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
	£
Customs	60,000
Inland Revenue	100,000
Post Office	400,000
Post Office Packet Service	100,000
Post Office Telegraphs	200,000
Total for Revenue Departments	£860,000
Grand Total	£2,137,750

1194

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
said, he did not wish to take exception on the present occasion to the Vote on Account. He was perfectly well aware that it was necessary, from time to time, in the course of a Session, to provide the Exchequer with the means of carrying on the Service of the country; and, no doubt, there had been reasons which had, in the present Session, rendered it difficult for the Government to take Supply. He would only say that hon. Gentlemen who used to be critical on the conduct of their Predecessors when they had occasion to ask for a Vote on Account would bear in mind that there had been reasons in former years similar to those reasons which now existed. As he understood, the Government asked for a Vote of Credit for a month, and, under the circumstances, that was not an unreasonable request; they knew they had Business which it was most important they should get through. He was anxious to facilitate the progress of Business, and he hoped the Committee would assent to the present proposal.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he thought Supply was in a much better condition now than it was at this time last year, and with this system of constantly voting sums on account it was impossible to get anything like a discussion on the Estimates, and when at the end of the Session every Member was tired out the balance was taken without any discussion. How could they expect to get anything like a thorough and proper discussion if this system was to be allowed? The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had twitted hon. Members below the Gangway with negligence in criticizing the Estimates, and was at some pains to rebut the accusations made; but the hon. Member, although one of the most constant in attendance in the House, was not present to-night, and it was unreasonable to expect men to be there at 1 o'clock on Saturday morning to discuss the Estimates. He thought the Committee had reason to complain at being called upon at the end of this night's debate to vote sums of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 without discussion, as must be the case now. It would probably be found that the Government could dispense with any further Vote until nearly the end of the Session, and then the House would be unable to give that 1195 amount of criticism to the Estimates which the Prime Minister had over and over again advocated. Under these circumstances, he thought the Committee might enter a general protest against this Vote. But there were certain items in this Vote which they might specifically protest against, and there was one against which he should protest on every occasion. That was the Vote for Secret Service. The Prime Minister had stated that this Fund was decreasing year by year, and had expressed his desire to see it disposed of. The Government had £10,000 for the Secret Service alone from the Consolidated Fund, and it was impossible that they could require £3,000 more for one month. He would not detain the Committee any further; but he should challenge this item.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he wished to ask, with regard to the Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland, whether the Government could form any idea of the number of those gentlemen, and the amount paid to them? There was a strong feeling with respect to Mr. Baillie Hamilton, who had been appointed a Resident Magistrate, and had boasted that he was to have £2,000 a-year. That was the gentleman who had given instructions to Mr. Clifford Lloyd to tear down the placard issued by Messrs. Parnell, Davitt, and Dillon, asking the people of Ireland to discover the murderers of Lord Frederick Cavendish. Was that gentleman to be one of the new Stipendiary Magistrates; how many were there to be, and what would their salaries be? He would also like to know whether the Judges were to receive salaries under this Act, and, if so, to what amount?

MR. GLADSTONE
With respect to the Judges, there is a provision in the Bill which has been read a second time this evening. With regard to the Stipendiary Magistrates, the hon. Member's information goes further than mine. I am not aware that any definite resolution has been taken with regard to the new Stipendiary Magistrates; but still it is possible that we may have some statement to make to the House upon that subject. At any rate, the House will feel that the importance of the duties to which the House may be pleased to appoint these Stipendiary Magistrates is such that some new provision will be required, because, undoubtedly, if there is to be any decision to in trust them 1196 with greater powers, it will be necessary to consider, as has already been stated by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, what further provision should be made for the exercise of those powers. I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at the present moment, and I rather think the statement of the hon. Member is premature. With respect to the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. A. O'Connor) as to taking Votes on Account, the old system which enabled us to go from one financial year to another is not now practicable, and Votes on Account have now become absolutely necessary. I consider this matter an open question for the House to consider; but it ought to be perfectly understood that although I would not say the system of Votes on Account is altogether favour able to full discussion by the House, I think it has some points to recommend it. The hon. Member rather overstated the case when he said the House will have no opportunity of discussing the Estimates until the end of the Session, because the two Votes on Account will not take effect till the end of June; consequently, there will be the whole month of June—and I am afraid something more—in which to discuss them.

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
said, last year he had offered strong opposition to Votes on Account; but on this occasion he entirely agreed with the Prime Minister, although he hoped it would not be taken as a precedent that because they had taken Votes on Account in two years, therefore Votes on Account might always be taken, and that the Minister of the day should be able to put off discussion upon them simply to pass ordinary Bills.

§ MR. REDMOND
said, he could not quite understand the Prime Minister when he said these Votes on Account had become a necessity, because it seemed to him that if the Government would only so arrange their Business as to be able to bring forward their Estimates in good time at the early part of the Session they might obviate this necessity. It was all very well to say that the Committee would have an opportunity of discussing these matters fully when the proper Estimates came on. That might, perhaps, be a sufficient answer to Members representing English constituencies, and who had not the same 1197 grievances as Irish Members to bring before the Committee on the consideration of the Estimates; but they were asked to vote sums on account for various Services in Ireland, and these Votes were used in support of an Administration in Ireland which was in every Department characterized by cruelty, and what he might even call brutality. They were asked to vote this money for the balance of the Secret Service Fund, and for Criminal Prosecutions. He should be willing to postpone to a future date the consideration of their grievances, if it were not that in the meantime men were suffering terrible injustice in Ireland. Under the head of Constabulary and Public Prosecutions in Ireland, money was asked in support of a system carried out by proceeding against people under obsolete Statutes—one of the time of Edward III. for instance—without any evidence to prove that they had been guilty of crime. Under these circumstances, he thought it was their duty to protest against the allocation of money to those purposes.

§ MR. HEALY
wished to ask the Government whether, before the Bill at present before the House came on in Committee, or before it left Committee, they would be able to state what amount would come in course of payment in consequence of this new legislation? There was a provision in the Bill as to Judges, and he should like to know what was to be done for the Stipendiary Magistrates? The Attorney General for Ireland made a pledge the other day that the question of the prisoners in confinement would be reconsidered; but there were other gentlemen than the three "suspects" who had been released from Kilmainham a fortnight ago, who were not more guilty than those three Gentlemen, but were still in prison. The Secretary of the Land League, Mr. Brennan, was still in prison.

MR. CHAIRMAN
Questions do not come into this Vote respecting Stipendiary Magistrates. They do not come under this account at all, and the other point to which the hon. Member refers is quite outside the Question before the Committee.

§ MR. HEALY
said, he had disposed of the first question; but under the head of "Prisoners (Ireland)" there was an item of £150,704, and he presumed he might discuss prisoners; and, if so, he pre- 1198 sumed he could discuss the case of a particular prisoner; and he respectfully submitted that he was not out of Order in asking a question respecting Mr. Brennan. His question was whether, in reference to the continued confinement of that gentleman, the Attorney General for Ireland could afford the Committee any information as to the probable course the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Chief Secretary would take in that case, especially as Davit had been released?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has devoted a considerable amount of consideration, among his multifarious duties, to the examination of the case of some of these persons; and many of them, as any hon. Member can see for himself in the daily papers, have been released. The case of each one is examined carefully by the Lord Lieutenant himself; and I am sure there will be no unnecessary delay in examining into the case of Mr. Brennan.

§ MR. REDMOND
asked whether the cases of persons detained under the Statute of Edward III. were also being examined by the Lord Lieutenant?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
His Excellency has no like control over that matter. It is a case of this kind. Security is required from these people, and if they refuse to give security they are committed to gaol; but all they have to do to get out of gaol is to undertake to behave them selves and give the required security.

§ MR. REDMOND
said, the question was whether there was any power under the Statute whereby they could be released without conditions.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
If a person is not well-behaved, and will not undertake to be well-behaved, he is sent to prison. The Prerogative of Mercy can open the prison doors, and the Prerogative of the Queen is vested in the Viceroy; but it is entirely a matter for His Excellency whether he will exercise his power in such cases.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
observed, that this Vote contained the salaries of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, Mr. Blake, and Major Bond, and other magistrates, who were doing so much to create disaffection and disloyalty in Ireland; and he inquired 1199 what was the amount of extra pay to be allocated to those gentlemen by the Government?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENEAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
replied, that he was not Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and hardly knew what this Vote covered.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, it appeared to him an extraordinary thing that when the Committee was asked to vote millions of money there should be absolutely no one prepared to answer questions relating to financial matters. Anyone taking up the Paper would see that there were a number of points upon which it would be reasonable to address questions to the Government. Under the head, for instance, of "Pauper Lunatics," he found an item of £90,000; but the Government had said they required £75,000 up to a certain date, leaving only a balance of £15,000 on that Vote; while for England, where the total Vote was £433,000, they appeared not to have required 1d., and had asked for only £1,000. If the Government could carry on their business with regard to pauper lunatics in England with £1,000 up to the end of June, how was it they required so much for Ireland? It was evident that these Votes were drawn up in a haphazard way; and he believed most of the money was not wanted, and that the Prime Minister was right when he said, with regard to Supply, that the Government were well off this year. He wished to ask the Government whether there was any necessity for this extra £3,000 for Secret Service. To his own knowledge—and that was going a long way—the Government did not require this amount, for the very good reason that they had a considerable balance of Secret Service money in hand from last year, and also had sufficient means of drawing from the Consolidated Fund without taking anything in the Estimates. He challenged the Government to show any ground for questioning the accuracy of that statement, or for alleging that there was any reasonable expectation of spending that £3,000; and he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £3,000, that being the amount of the item for Secret Service.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,134,750, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or 1200 towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, the payments for pauper lunatics were made as soon as the accounts were made up.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, with regard to the Secret Service money, was not the old system still maintained by which the Departments in which it was used kept a balance in hand from year to year, instead of paying it into the Exchequer? Was there not last year a balance in the hands of the Secretary of State?

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, he was unable to say whether there was a penny in hand at the end of last year.

§ MR. DILLON
said, he wished to know whether they were here asked to vote any portion of the salary of Mr. Clifford Lloyd? because, if they were, he must oppose it. This person was at the present moment engaged in the persecution of 40 evicted families. He had arrested two carpenters for no other offence than, at the expense of the Ladies' Land League, erecting wooden houses for the shelter of these unfortunate people; and these two carpenters were men with families depending on them. He imagined Mr. Clifford Lloyd's salary would come either under "Law Charges in Ireland," or "Constabulary." At any rate, if they were paying anything to this man, he (Mr. Dillon) should move to reduce the amount of the Vote by £500, or some sum that would include his salary.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, that, as this Vote covered all expenses for one month, the salary of the Irish magistrates for that period was included. No doubt, one month's pay of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was included. He could not give the amount of that gentleman's salary.

§ MR. HEALY
suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn and a division taken on this question of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's salary.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
said, that with regard to the amount for pauper lunatics in Ireland his only wonder was that the charge made was not more, because he considered the policy of the British Government in Ireland eminently calculated to make the people both paupers and lunatics. The Secret Service money, so far as it was expended in Ireland, 1201 was paid to informers. It was not spent to good purpose. What was the use of paying informers if they did not inform of anything at all?

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 113: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 89.)

§ Original Question again proposed.

§ MR. DILLON
said, he would move to reduce the Vote by £125, which would be about the amount of a month's salary to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He (Mr. Dillon) was in receipt of numerous letters and telegrams from the county of Tipperary, descriptive of the outrageous conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd; but the particular thing for which he sought to deprive this person of a month's salary was his having engaged himself in the heartless work of preventing the erection of shelter for 40 families who had been evicted under circumstances of great cruelty. In one case a priest had written to him to say that his own father, a man of 80 years of age, had been evicted. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been on the spot and had aggravated the hardship by every kind of insolence and harshness. Attempts were made to find shelter for the evicted people on a farm two miles from their old dwellings; but Mr. Clifford Lloyd proceeded against the man who had been employed to build the shelter. No notice was taken of the statement that the two carpenters who had been sent down from Dublin had no connection with any political movement, and the men were arrested and charged with an intention to misbehave themselves in some way that no one could understand. These carpenters were now lying in Limerick Gaol. What he wished to know was, whether or not this kind of thing was to continue? for it must be understood that so long as Mr. Clifford Lloyd and others of his class were allowed to ride roughshod over the people of Ireland there could be no question at all about a policy of conciliation. He could answer, he believed, for the people of Limerick and the people of Tipperary that it was no use talking about having initiated a policy of conciliation whilst Mr. Clifford Lloyd and people like him were allowed to act in the manner he had described. This priest to whom he had referred had 1202 informed him that whilst he was standing on the threshold of his father's house during the eviction Mr. Clifford Lloyd had approached him and told him in a threatening manner that if he did not know how to behave himself he would quickly teach him how to do so. Such language as this was eminently calculated to bring the law into contempt in Ireland. It was no use framing laws for the prevention of disorder and keeping the peace in Ireland so long as the magistrates were hateful to the people. The only way to give the law a chance was to remove all people who were regarded as enemies of the poor—those men who made themselves the tools and agents of evicting landlords. There was not a tenant or a poor man in Clare, Tipperary, or Limerick who did not consider Mr. Clifford Lloyd an enemy, and there was not a person who was not a landlord who believed he would get justice from him. There was not a person who did not look upon him as a tool of the landlords.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,134,625, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883,"—(Mr. Dillon.)

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, he did not think it was fair or reasonable for the hon. Member for Tipperary, on an occasion of this kind—he would not say at this time of night—to spring a debate on a particular subject on the Committee. The hon. Member was in possession of information which had not reached him; therefore, as would be readily imagined, he was hardly able to give a satisfactory answer. If the hon. Member wished to bring a charge against the magistrates, let him do it in such a way that hon. Gentlemen might have an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the facts, and that the magistracy might be able to meet the attack made upon them. So far as he (the Attorney General for Ireland) was concerned, he considered that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was performing a service of great danger, and performing it with a great amount of personal courage. He was brought into conflict with tenants evicted from their holdings, who were 1203 smarting under their grievances, and who were in a state of mind in which they were not likely to look upon the magistrates who were protecting the sheriffs from injury with anything but harsh feelings. It was possible that Mr. Clifford Lloyd might be blameless in the matter referred to by the hon. Member; but the Committee had not the facts before them. He trusted the hon. Member would not press his Amendment to a division, because he did not think one could be fairly taken. They had no means of controverting the statements made in a debate which, as he had said, had been sprung upon them by surprise.

§ MR. EDWARD SHEIL
said, Mr. Clifford Lloyd's name had not been brought up for the first time in the House to-day; so that when the Attorney General for Ireland accused Irish Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House of springing a debate upon them and unfairly attacking a man who was absent, it seemed to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman very much exaggerated the state of the case. Mr. Clifford Lloyd's name was perfectly well known to everyone. It had, unfortunately, attained great notoriety in Ireland; consequently, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said they had sprung a debate on the Committee, he was not stating the fact. Everyone who had listened to the debates which had taken place in the House recently must know that Mr. Clifford Lloyd's conduct had been brought in question over and over again. It seemed to him that his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) had seized a very favourable opportunity for raising a debate on the matter; and he, for one, trusted the hon. Member would go to a division on the Vote.

§ MR. LEAMY
said, that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was not in possession of information to enable him to meet the charge of his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon), the proper way to enable him to do so would be to postpone the Vote. Whenever he (Mr. Leamy) had an opportunity—whether it was on the question of reducing a Vote or not—of protesting against the conduct of such a man as Mr. Clifford Lloyd he should avail himself of it. It was not so long ago since the hon. and learned Member 1204 for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) stated in the House that crime had greatly increased in Clare, and that within the past four or five months it had become as extensive as it was during the corresponding period of last year. Well, the period during which crime had increased, singularly enough, was the period during which Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been a special magistrate in the district. These matters were not considered worth attention by some Members; but the Irish Representatives considered it their duty to avail themselves of every opportunity of protesting against the conduct of such men as Mr. Clifford Lloyd, especially when they knew there was at the present moment a Bill before Parliament that proposed to increase the duties of that gentleman. The Irish Members would be failing in their duty if they did not carry on this work. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was Chief Secretary they had endeavored to ascertain the amount of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's salary, but had not succeeded. This gentleman received, first of all, a salary as a magistrate, then traveling expenses, expenses for being away from home, expenses for clerks, &c.; so that there could be no doubt he was one of the best paid officials in Ireland. Whenever money was sought to be obtained for the payment of magistrates like Mr. Clifford Lloyd there should be such a debate as this, and a division should be taken.

§ MR. T. D. SULLIVAN
said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had complained that the Irish Members had sprung a debate on the question of the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd on the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman forgot that the Government had "sprung" a demand for money upon the Committee. That was why the debate had arisen. He (Mr. Sullivan) was listening in the House during the last Session of Parliament when the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth)—who was no opponent of the Government, but one of their most consistent supporters—had the candor to say that wherever Mr. Clifford Lloyd was sent to in Ireland he would cause a rebellion. That was the opinion of a Gentleman who was a magistrate, who was not an opponent of the Government, and was no 1205 disturber of their peace. And that opinion was a sound one. Wherever Mr. Clifford Lloyd had gone he had got up a rebellious spirit; and if there had not been actual rebellion, it was because Her Majesty's Forces, who had been sent to support him, were in overwhelming strength. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was to Her Majesty's Government a very costly luxury. Wherever he went, morning, noon, or night, he had to be watched, protected, and defended. He (Mr. Sullivan) had been credibly informed that in the house in which Mr. Clifford Lloyd resided, on every landing, and on every staircase, there was a policeman. Mr. Clifford Lloyd could not pass from one house to another or through the street without having a policeman with him. Why was he retained in that position? It was because he had won the heart of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) when he was Chief Secretary. They had read in romances stories of wonderful attachments; but anything to compare with the love and affection subsisting between these two gentlemen he had failed to meet with in his reading of either history or romance. The Irish Members were bound to oppose this Vote. It was not necessary for the preservation of the peace of Ireland; on the contrary, Mr. Clifford Lloyd, whom it maintained in his present position, was doing a great deal to defer the pacification of the country. He (Mr. Sullivan) had no doubt that if they appointed a wiser man in the place of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, they would be doing a great deal more for the pacification of that part of Ireland over which that gentleman presided than they were doing at present.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he thought it unreasonable to ask the Committee to vote public money at such a time as this, more particularly as the Government were confessedly not prepared to give them any information; therefore, he would move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. If his Motion were adopted, it would enable the Government to obtain the necessary information, and to be prepared, at the proper time, to give such explanation as the Committee thought desirable. The case against the Government was unanswerable—in the first place, they were unprepared to give the 1206 information; and, in the next place, it was too late an hour to go on with the Vote. If right hon. Gentlemen who formed the Cabinet were on the Treasury Bench, he would appeal to them whether it was not desirable that the present system of magistrates in Ireland should be re-modeled, and that no gentlemen who had not had legal training should be appointed to the magistracy in Ireland. As long as the present system was continued, there must be continued complaints as to the conduct of the magistrates. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was rather an exaggerated case of Resident Magistrate; but, after all, it was only a question of degree. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was not very much worse than many others—he was only one of a class. They should agree to Progress being reported, in order that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the Prime Minister, might give them an opinion as to what Resident Magistrates should be appointed.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)

§ MR. HEALY
said, that before the Chairman put the Vote he would put it to the Government that, in view of the cordial and general co-operation that was understood to exist between the two Parties—the Irish Party on the one hand, and the Ministerial Party on the other—there should be a cordial co-operation between them on this matter. He would advise the Attorney General for Ireland to make a searching investigation into the character and conduct of the magistrates of Ireland before the Coercion Bill came to be considered. It did not appear as though the Government were going to pass the Bill as rapidly as they expected. Perhaps it would accelerate its passage if the Government, when information on such matters as the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was asked for, were in a position to give it. He should, however, if necessary, raise every one of these points in considerable detail.

§ MR. GIBSON
said, the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had moved the reduction of the Vote on the narrow ground of—as he had himself said—making a protest against the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. Hon. Members 1207 had said it was desirable to have a short debate in order to emphasize their objection to that official, and upon the subject they had had a few short observations in reply from the Attorney General for Ireland. As he had anticipated, the hon. Member for Tipperary had not rested his objection to Mr. Clifford Lloyd on any particular case, but used a particular case as an illustration of a broader objection; therefore, he could not see how, if the observations of the Attorney General for Ireland had been longer, they would have destroyed the objection of the hon. Member. He (Mr. Gibson) thought it right to say, as he was on his feet, that, although his acquaintance with Mr. Clifford Lloyd was slight, from what he knew of him and what he had heard of him, he thought him a highly capable, efficient, and courageous gentleman. It would be wrong and cowardly on his part, if, being present; he did not make that statement. He would put it to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) whether, as the hon. Member for Tipperary had challenged the Vote on the question of the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, it would not be better to make any protest it was thought desirable to make in the division on that challenge, rather than in a division on reporting Progress?

§ MR. DILLON
contended that Irish Members were in every respect entitled to receive information from the Government as to their intentions with regard to the evicted families. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had put the case very plainly, although he had not stated his (Mr. Dillon's) views exactly. Still, he wished to express his willingness to withdraw the Motion for the reduction of the Vote, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would give some assurance that the 40 families should not be left in their present deplorable and houseless position. His objections to the whole course of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's administration, of course, remained the same, and would form the subject of future debate in that House; nevertheless, if a guarantee were forthcoming that the police interference would cease in the present case, he was certainly inclined to yield something in return.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he thought the hon. Member for Tipperary could not 1208 have heard what the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had said. His right hon. and learned Friend had distinctly stated that he was not in possession of information which would enable him to discuss the question raised by the hon. Member; but that he would be ready to go into the matter fully, and meet the charge preferred against Mr. Clifford Lloyd as soon as that necessary information was obtained. To these remarks the right hon. and learned Gentleman merely added one or two observations with regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, which were received with the general approval of hon. Members in the House. The hon. Member for Tipperary was, of course, perfectly within his right in taking a division on his Motion if he deemed it necessary to do so. Still, he was bound to point out that the course adopted in this case was most unusual, and at the same time inconvenient, because if, when a Vote on Account was asked for, it were the practice to raise and discuss at length questions on each particular item, it would be practically impossible to carry on the Service of the country. He repeated that if the hon. Member wished to take a division it was perfectly competent to him to do so; but his right hon. and learned Friend had given so full an assurance that the case should be gone into as soon as information was received, that he hoped the Vote would be allowed to be taken without the Committee being put to the trouble of dividing.

§ MR. DILLON
said, after the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, he should be willing to withdraw his Motion, if that right hon. Gentleman or the Attorney General for Ireland would name a time at which he could bring the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd under the notice of the House. The difficulty he labored under was that if he allowed the present opportunity to pass, he should be in ignorance as to when another opportunity would offer for again bringing this particular case forward. In the meantime, the 40 families would remain houseless and homeless.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, the hon. Member for Tipperary had asked a fair question, and was entitled to an answer. The hon. Member could raise the point as to the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd by way of question, or in the form of a 1209 Motion on going into Committee of Supply. In either of these ways, if he would give Notice of his intention on the Notice Paper, he would have the opportunity which he desired.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that the hon. Member for Tipperary should proceed by question was not satisfactory. From his own experience, he found that course to be perfectly useless, for he had already brought this matter forward by way of question, without any effect. It was a most astonishing circumstance that the Attorney General for Ireland was ignorant of the facts of this case, because they were perfectly notorious, and a considerable time, moreover, had elapsed since they occurred. He, therefore, felt bound to say that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not in possession of them, he ought to be. Several weeks had passed since he had addressed the Question to the Attorney General for Ireland on the subject of these unfortunate families. He had referred to the man who died of an attack on the lungs, the consequence of exposure resulting from being turned out of his house. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said Mr. Clifford Lloyd was not to blame for that. He (Mr. Sexton) said that he was. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also stated that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was discharging a service of danger to himself; but the service he was engaged in was really one of danger to the unfortunate people who were evicted. As to putting down Questions with regard to the conduct of officials in Ireland, this was well known, as he had already pointed out, to be perfectly useless. He had again and again called the attention of the Government to the fact that the lives of innocent persons were being daily sacrificed in Ireland in consequence of the action of officials, without producing any result.

§ MR. CHILDERS
pointed out that his suggestion to the hon. Member for Tipperary was not only that he could proceed by Question, but by Motion on going into Committee of Supply. If the hon. Member objected to the former course, he would have every opportunity for discussing this subject by the alternative indicated.

§ MR. REDMOND
said, that the alternative which the Secretary of State for 1210 War had suggested to his hon. Friend as affording an opportunity of a full discussion of the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was not a practical one. Upon what occasion, he asked, between that time and Whitsuntide, for instance, could a subject of that kind be brought forward? It was not a matter which would brook delay. A single week's inaction might result in the death of another unfortunate man from exposure and want; and, therefore, he said it was monstrous that such an answer as they had listened to from the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be given by a responsible Member of the Government. The answer of the Attorney General for Ireland that he knew nothing of the facts of the case to which the hon. Member for Tipperary had called his attention was a complete justification of the Motion of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to report Progress, which, if it did nothing more than mark their disapprobation of this want of knowledge on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in a matter of such importance it would be essential that it should be pushed to a division. Some hon. Gentlemen smiled at that remark; but did they consider it a subject for smiles that the families of 40 tenants were unsheltered and homeless, on the roadside, in a single district, in consequence of the action of this magistrate? The consequence of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's action was that protection and house shelter had been denied to these unfortunate families. He said Irish Members were bound, by every consideration of their duty, to press this question to an immediate issue; and, therefore, from that point of view, the alternatives offered by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War were useless. If Irish Members asked Questions as to the conduct of Irish officials, it was well known that they did not receive satisfactory answers; if, in consequence of that, they used the Forms of the House to raise discussion they were denounced as Obstructionists; and further, if, in the present instance, they were to put down a Notice on going into Committee of Supply there would be no opportunity for a fortnight, at least, of discussing the question. In the meantime these families were perishing on the roadsides. Under the circumstances, he sincerely hoped his hon. Friend the Member for 1211 Cavan would press his Motion for reporting Progress to a division; and, in concluding his remarks, he could not but express surprise that the Attorney General for Ireland should have declared himself to be in absolute ignorance of the facts connected with so well-known a case as the eviction of these 40 families—this notorious case of severity on the part of an Irish magistrate, Mr. Clifford Lloyd, who had refused to allow charitable people to provide these unfortunates with shelter.

§ MR. HEALY
said, this was a very simple matter, and could be dealt with at once if the Government would only look at the facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had told them that day that he was in favour of justice being done to Ireland; and, therefore, he felt no hesitation in further appealing to right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. Here was a case of some 40 people who had been turned out on the roadside; and he asked what was there to prevent the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland saying he would instruct Mr. Clifford Lloyd not to interfere with the erection of huts for the purpose of giving them shelter? There was a very good precedent for doing so, because when Mr. Clifford Lloyd, acting on instructions from the Under Secretary at the Castle, gave orders that the manifesto relating to the recent murders should be torn down wherever it was placarded, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given Mr. Clifford Lloyd a rap on the knuckles, so to speak, by telling him not to tear down the manifesto. Could not the right hon. and learned Gentleman then do the same kind of thing with regard to the huts? They were told that the Government desired to co-operate with Irish Members; but, for his part, he repudiated co-operation if it was to be carried out as it seemed likely to be. There were in one district of Ireland 200 people homeless through eviction. Would the Government allow homes to be erected for them or not? He thought it would be well to make that question a test of the feeling of the Government with regard to doing justice to the people of Ireland. Again, were they prepared to release the carpenters, who only earned three days' wages in erecting the huts? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War 1212 said they had an opportunity of proceeding in this matter by Question, and by a Motion on going into Committee of Supply. That was quite true; but Irish Members had a better opportunity than either of these, and this was one of them. He assured right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench that, until this matter was settled, there would be no getting on with the Estimates. This was a much better way of raising the question than either of those suggested by the Secretary of State for War, because it would probably lead to the removal of men whose conduct was known to be bad, if the Government found the Estimates blocked as long as their services were retained. He told the Government frankly that the object was to make it inconvenient for them to employ swashbucklers like Mr. Clifford Lloyd in Ireland.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, the hon. Member who had just spoken was under a misapprehension in supposing that he had administered any snub or rap on the knuckles to any official in Ireland. When in Dublin he had seen a police report, from which he learnt that the police, on their own responsibility, had torn down the placards referred to by the hon. Member; and upon this—perhaps exceeding his responsibility a little—he sent a telegram suggesting that the placards should not be interfered with. He did not know that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had given any directions in connection with what had taken place. so much for that point. With regard to the request of the hon. Members for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) and Wexford (Mr. Healy), that an assurance should be given that the huts would be allowed to be erected, that was not in his power. He had no control whatever over any magistrate in Ireland in the discharge of his duty. He had no power even to offer an opinion on the conduct of a magistrate, who, if he understood his duty, would in such a case demand by what authority he volunteered his advice.

§ MR. DILLON
said, they were in this position. The Committee were asked to vote an enormous sum of money for State purposes, and there was no one in the House who knew anything about the position of an official whose salary was included in the sum asked for.

1213

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, he thought he could shorten the discussion by stating that there was nobody in Ireland who had any legal authority over a magistrate in the exercise of the functions of his Office except the Court of Queen's Bench. If a magistrate decided erroneously his conduct must be reviewed in regular and due course. So far as he was aware, the only power which the Government possessed over a Resident Magistrate in the exercise and discharge of his duties was that he might be directed to go from one place to another; but they could not control his judicial action in the exercise of his functions as a magistrate.

§ MR. DILLON
said, they had succeeded in drawing from the Attorney General for Ireland one of the most extraordinary statements he had ever heard in that House. It amounted to this—that the Irish magistrates were allowed to do pretty well what they liked, and were subject only to the Court of Queen's Bench. It seemed to him that this answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would render it necessary for Irish Members to raise the whole question relative to the magistracy in Ireland. Their complaint was not against the local magistrates at that moment, but against those magistrates who were paid by a money Vote of that House, and who held an entirely different position from the magistrates in England. Of course, if the Irish magistrates confined themselves to judicial action, the statement which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had just made concerning them would be intelligible enough, and might be accepted. But they did things of a far different character. They exceeded their judicial functions, and went about the country acting in the same spirit as had been shown by Mr. Clifford Lloyd. That gentleman had, in fact, tried on a system of his own, which was entirely apart from and altogether overstepped the judicial functions of a magistrate. He acted as if he were placed in charge of a district in a state of siege; and if an outrage occurred, his practice was to gallop into the district, and sweep in all the farmers' sons within a certain radius without any investigation at all, upon the general principle that farmers' sons were sure to be implicated in these out- 1214 rages. He had been assured by men who had been brought before this tyrannical magistrate that they had actually been afraid to say a word in their own defense, lest they should be committed to gaol for contempt of Court. He was also informed that Mr. Clifford Lloyd unfairly questioned the accused men, and that he browbeated and bullied them by calling them murderers, assassins, and ruffians. The use of such language by a magistrate on the Bench ought to cause his instant removal. The Resident Magistrates in Ireland were going about doing what he had described, and, further, laying down certain laws of their own, and harshly enforcing them. Mr. Clifford Lloyd went to the farmers, and said—"You shan't allow such and such a man to erect a hut on the land;" and if no notice was taken of his interference, he pounced upon the unfortunate carpenters from Dublin engaged in erecting the huts, and cast them into Limerick Gaol under an obsolete Act passed in the Reign of Edward III. Mr. Clifford Lloyd brought the law into utter contempt, and he treated the people of his district as he would treat uncivilized beings. They were told by the Attorney General for Ireland that he had no right to interfere with the action of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell them who had authority over Mr. Clifford Lloyd? Had anybody in England authority over him, if no one had in Ireland? Who had the power to dismiss him? Where were they to look for satisfaction for any outrage that this man might commit in the name of the law?

§ MR. T. A. DICKSON
said, if he remembered correctly, the question of the erection of huts was before the House some days ago, and then arranged. He understood that directions had been given to Mr. Clifford Lloyd not to prevent the erection of huts where they were being put up for the purposes of shelter, and not for the purpose of intimidation. He was under the impression that the matter was settled amicably, and that a Member on the Front Bench, on the part of the Government, had undertaken that no obstacle would be placed in the way of the erection of huts intended for shelter.

§ MR. REDMOND
said, they had not received a complete answer from the 1215 Government. The huts in the case of these 40 families had not been erected, and one unfortunate man had actually died from exposure. He would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether any order had been sent to Mr. Clifford Lloyd; and he would further like to ask him, in reference to his statement that he had no power over Mr. Clifford Lloyd, whether this official did not, in fact, owe his appointment to the Executive? Surely, if that were so, the Executive had power to censure or to dismiss him.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, he was not aware that any order had been sent to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, although one might have been sent without his knowing it; but he certainly did not send one. With reference to the second question of the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond); he had to say that, of course, the Government appointed Resident Magistrates, and they had power to dismiss them. Two workmen, who had been mentioned by hon. Gentlemen, had been committed to gaol for not entering into surety for their good behavior. If they had been improperly committed they would be entitled to discharge, and if they were discharged they would be entitled to bring an action for damages. If they did bring such an action, and succeeded in their suit, he need not remind the Committee they would receive sufficient and ample damages.

§ MR. HEALY
said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was sincerely to be commiserated with, for he had to stand up in the House to answer questions from Irish Members on matters on which he told them he knew absolutely nothing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was in a position in which he deserved their sincerest sympathy; and he (Mr. Healy) would suggest to the Government that next time matters affecting Ireland were brought up for consideration, they should arrange for the presence of someone able to answer any question that might be addressed to him. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew nothing of the matter before them, and seeing there was no possible object in keeping him here, he might be dispensed from service in the House. They desired information which at pre- 1216 sent they could not obtain. He would suggest to his hon. Colleagues that they could not do better than, on a future occasion in Committee, get up a breezy discussion on the character of the men who were carrying out these unjust laws. They had to-night learned the startling fact that when Government had appointed a man no one had any control over him in the future. When the new Stipendiary Magistrates were to be appointed, it would behove them to be chary as to who they appointed. They would like to make some inquiry as to the previous conduct of the new officials. Unfortunately, he was not willing to admit that the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was precisely accurate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know very well that these Resident Magistrates were being used not exactly as magistrates, but as a sort of political, as a sort of military rough riders, employed by the Government to do as they pleased and reduce the country to subjection. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was not appointed to carry out any Common or Statute Law, but to strike fear or terror into the people of Clare. No good purpose could be served by the right hon. and learned Gentleman evading the position that Mr. Clifford Lloyd held with regard to the Executive Government. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had some superior; there was someone to whom he reported, and he thought that superior would be a person for whom Mr. Clifford Lloyd entertained a great amount of respect. There must be someone to whom this man was responsible, and he and his hon. Friends wanted to know who was the spokesman for that superior? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not, had the Solicitor General for Ireland anything to do with Mr. Clifford Lloyd? If the Solicitor General for Ireland had no control over the gentleman, had the Lord Advocate for Scotland anything to do with him? Perhaps the Secretary of State for War would be able to say who had any authority over this warlike magistrate, who, so far as they had yet learned, appeared to be above the House of Commons. In his opinion, the House of Commons ought to be above voting the gentleman £125 as a month's salary.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, the hon. Gentleman put the matter in the right light. 1217 Let the Committee decide at once whether the amount should be made.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, they had heard that this semi-military magistrate conducted many of his proceedings in private. There was a certain amount of advantage in discussion of this kind at such an hour as the present, because the Press was practically excluded. The eyes and ears of the public were closed to their proceedings at half-past 2 o'clock in the morning; and, therefore, they could speak frankly; they could express themselves freely. Apart from all Party feeling, he appealed to hon. Members to say whether the spectacle which the Committee now presented, not to the public, but to itself, was not one which was at once monstrous and scandalous? The House of Commons was asked by the Government to vote upwards of £2,000,000. That sum was made up of no less than 142 separate items, and of that number only two had been touched upon—namely, the items for the Secret Service and the Irish Constabulary. With regard to the Secret Service money, the Secretary to the Treasury had had to admit he really knew nothing. With respect to the Vote for the Irish Constabulary and the magistrates provided for by that Vote, the Attorney General for Ireland admitted that he did not know anything; on every point on which any challenge had been made the Government had had to admit that they knew nothing. One Minister after the other had answered that he knew nothing about the matter. Was that a proper position for the House of Commons to be put in? It was a very great pity that the public were not likely to know what was going on. ["Hear!"] It was all very well for hon. Members to say "Hear, hear!" in a sarcastic tone; it was their duty, and it was the duty of every man in the House, to exercise a surveillance over the public money. Hon. Gentlemen were supposed to be the protectors of the public purse. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that another occasion should be taken for raising the question. They were prepared to do so if the Government would meet them in a reasonable way. It was in the power of the Government to afford them an opportunity for discussing the subject; and if the Secretary of State for War would, in the absence of the Prime 1218 Minister, take a bold step and give an assurance that a proper opportunity would be given them for discussion, or that the Estimates would be brought on at an early hour, he felt persuaded that his hon. Friends would be satisfied.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he would like to make one or two observations with regard to what had been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Dickson) as to the erection of huts. The other day he (Mr. Biggar) understood the Attorney General for Ireland to say that in cases where intimidation was evident it was illegal to put up huts; but in cases where no intimidation was visible it was clearly the duty of the magistrates not to interfere. No pledge, as he understood, was given. It was perfectly idle for the Attorney General for Ireland to say that the Executive had no control over the magistrates, for it was preposterous to suppose that these officials were not continually directing communications to Dublin Castle. Seeing that Dublin Castle communicated with the magistrates day by day, that it instructed them upon all sorts of subjects, and seeing that Dublin Castle had full power to dismiss them, it was idle for the Attorney General for Ireland to tell them that no authority could be exercised, or was exercised, by the Castle over the magistrates. Of course, such a thing as direct influence with regard to decisions could not be had, except through the Court of Queen's Bench; but, at the same time, there was a power in the hands of the Executive to influence the conduct of these men. What he would suggest to the Attorney General for Ireland was that he should promise them that he would represent to the new Chief Secretary what his opinion was in regard to the question of law involved in the erection of the huts. Whether it was exactly within the right hon. and learned Gentleman's technical right, it was within his practical right to represent to the Chief Secretary what were the duties of a Resident Magistrate; it was right the right hon. and learned Gentleman should suggest to the Chief Secretary the desirability of teaching Mr. Clifford Lloyd what was his duty under the circumstances described.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, he would convey the opinion, which he 1219 had repeatedly given in the House with respect to huts, to the Chief Secretary; and, having given that assurance, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he thought this discussion had not been without advantage, for it enabled the Irish Members to tell the Government something of the mind of the Irish Party, and gave the Government an opportunity of displaying something of their intentions. They were now face to face with a Government which expressed its desire to reverse some of the proceedings of the administration in Ireland. One part of that administration was the action of the Stipendiary Magistrates. The action of the Government on the question whether they would allow those magistrates to remain in Office, and continue the sort of proceedings they had been undertaking for some time past, would show whether their intentions were sham intentions or real intentions. So long as the late Chief Secretary was Secretary for Ireland there was hope for any British blackguard in British Burmah, or anywhere else, who was ready to take his part in Bashi-Bazoukism over the Irish people. They had present a Member of the Cabinet, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would do service to his Colleagues, and to the Government generally, if he conveyed to them to-morrow the result and the temper of this debate; because that would show that so long as Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and gentlemen like him, were retained in Office, and allowed to carry on proceedings as they had hitherto, there must remain a chasm between the Government and the Irish Members upon any measures they might submit to the House. He thought it was an advantage to the Committee to have been afforded an opportunity of stating what they really meant.

§ MR. LEAMY
said, it seemed to him that the undertaking given by the Attorney General for Ireland was worth very little.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
It was what I was asked for.

§ MR. LEAMY
said, he at once acknowledged the courtesy and readiness with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman answered the question of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar); 1220 but he did not consider the undertaking worth very much, because, if carried out, he did not believe it would have any effect on the actions of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. Mr. Clifford Lloyd must have become aware of the opinion the Attorney General for Ireland had expressed when he was asked about the erection of these huts; but that had not prevented him from intimidating, and, under those circumstances, it was immaterial what opinion the Attorney General for Ireland held on the subject. He hoped his hon. Friend would persist in his Motion, until they had some information from the Government in reference to it.

§ MR. DILLON
said, he was not at all satisfied with the answer of the Attorney General for Ireland, and therefore he must go to a division, for he would not rest until he got permission for huts to be erected for every evicted tenant in Ireland.

§ MR. BIGGAR
also thought the reply of the Attorney General for Ireland did not amount to very much. They all knew what was the conduct of the Stipendiary Magistrates, and under the régime of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) they were encouraged to act in the most outrageous manner. If the promise of the right hon. and learned Member was kept only in the word, and not in the spirit, the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) would from day to day be forced to ask questions, and criticize in every kind of way the conduct of the Executive, and the result could be very well foreshadowed. With these remarks he should be satisfied with a less full promise than he otherwise should have been, and he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.

§ Motion, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," by leave, withdrawn.

§ Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £2,134,625, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883."—(Mr. Dillon.)

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 83: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 90.)

§ Original Question again proposed.

1221

§ MR. REDMOND
said, he wished to put a question to the Attorney General for Ireland with regard to the recent occurrence at Ballina. A few days ago, as probably every Member of the Committee knew, charges of buckshot were fired by the police at Ballina at a crowd of children. Some of the children were wounded, and some were now in danger of losing their lives. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had asked a Question about the matter, and the answer he had received was that the Inspector of Police who was in command of the men who fired upon the children—and whose conduct had, on a previous occasion, been made the subject of comment in the House, but without the slightest effect—had received leave of absence——

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, the Sub-Inspector had been relieved from duty.

§ MR. REDMOND
wished to know if the Government had ordered any inquiry to be made into the circumstances of this firing upon the people, and whether they had come to the conclusion that the Sub-Inspector should be dismissed the force?

§ THE ATTOENEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, the Government were now engaged in investigating the matter; and he would ask the hon. Member, in the public interest, not to press for a further answer.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, that when the conduct of the magistracy in Ireland was next under discussion he should expect an answer as to the legal right of these gentlemen to hold private Courts. In one case a lady—Miss Kirk—was tried privately and alone, although she requested that the clergyman of the parish might be present, and that she might have the assistance of a solicitor. The magistrate, in a rough manner, refused her request, and Miss Kirk was committed to Limerick Gaol, where she was now lying. The Court of Queen's Bench refused to hear any legal point on appeal, unless it came from the Court below, and that rested on the dictum of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald. In the case of Mrs. Moore, if it had been gone into, it would have been found that she was a married woman and could not be asked to give bail, and she would not have 1222 been detained. He should also ask whether the evicted tenants, for whom shelter was provided, would be allowed to take advantage of it?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, that, for the satisfaction of the hon. Member, he certainly would inquire into these two points. He was under the impression that he had seen it stated in the newspapers that Miss Kirk's case had been decided on by the Court of Queen's Bench.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, the Court of Queen's Bench had decided that the right of appeal was killed unless the case had come from the Court below.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he would press on the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury the propriety of giving an answer to the question he had raised, as to whether it was likely or unlikely that the Government would find themselves compelled to come to the Committee again this year for a Vote on Account?

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had already answered that question this evening. No Minister, no one, above all, who knew Treasury Business, could like Votes on Account; but they were inevitable in certain cases. He was not in a position, nor was his right hon. Friend in a position, to say that they would not have to ask for another Vote on Account. It depended on the progress made with Business. If the hon. Member wished the Government to go on with Supply, instead of the Arrears Bill, of course, he (Mr. Childers) would communicate that desire on the part of the hon. Member to the Prime Minister; but he hardly thought that was seriously wished.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, that the other day four young men were arrested in county Louth. On the following day they were committed, bail being refused. On the 7th of March, 10 days after their imprisonment, they were liberated, Captain Cooke, the presiding magistrate, saying that there was not a scintilla of evidence against them. It was manifest that the evidence that had been given was a piece of concocted perjury; but from that time no step had been taken to prosecute the two informers for that perjury, although they still resided in the country. In another case, a number 1223 of respectable men, some owning 400 acres of land, were arrested on a charge of having entered into a conspiracy to murder Sub-Inspector Callahan, of Drogheda, and subscribed £100 for the purpose. The attention of the Attorney General for Ireland was drawn to the case, and the informer was taken to live in Dublin. Well, it was ultimately proved that the informer had sworn falsely; but yet he was not committed for perjury. He was taken back to Dublin Castle a fortnight ago. Was this man still in the country, and, if so, was he to be prosecuted for perjury? What length of time would the Attorney General for Ireland take to make up his mind whether or not he would prosecute an informer for perjury? He was not slow to order any other kind of prosecution.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, he had already stated in the House the circumstances connected with the case, and he could only repeat them now. The hon. Member had said there was an investigation before the magistrates. Well, of that he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had seen nothing but a newspaper report, and he could not undertake to order a prosecution on the strength of that report. He had asked for an authentic report of the trial at the Petty Sessions, and until he received that he could not act in the matter. The parties against whom it was said false evidence had been given were in a substantial position—one of them owned 400 acres of land, and was a richer man than he (the Attorney General for Ireland) himself—and they could prosecute the man for perjury. He was not sure that they had not had advice on the subject. The magistrates might have explained that they did not think it wise to recommend that a charge should be preferred against the man for perjury.

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he asked whether the man was still in the country, and could be made responsible? Was he still detained as a resident in the Castle or in the purlieus thereof?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)
said, he was quite sure the man was not in Dublin Castle and never had been. What the hon. Member meant by "the purlieus thereof" he could not say.

1224

§ Original Question put.

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 13: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 91.)

§ MR. HEALY
asked when the Government intended to take the Report of the Vote?

§ MR. COURTNEY
On Monday.

§ MR. HEALY
said, in that case he trusted the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be present in the House, because, although they all admitted the courteous character of the replies of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, his want of information upon certain Irish questions was much to be regretted.

§ Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

§ Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, as all the remaining Business on the Paper was blocked, he would move the adjournment of the House.

§ MR. HEALY
asked whether that Motion could be put? It was not the case that all the remaining Business was blocked.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he was now informed that there was one Motion which was not blocked; and he would, therefore, not make the Motion.

c1224

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL. 71 words