§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £27,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Vote for Diplomatic Services in the Papers before the House showed a total of £28,000; but the Government only asked for £27,600, two sums of £200 each, for the International Commission for Revising Mixed Tribunals in Egypt and the Conference at Paris for the Protection of Submarine Cables, being omitted.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, there was a charge of £1,800, to cover Lord Dufferin's special mission to Egypt, which had been reduced to £1,600.
§ MR. COURTNEYNo; the reduction is in connection with Sir William Hewett's mission to Abyssinia.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the charges for Sir William Hewett's mission to Abyssinia, Lord Dufferin's special mission to Egypt, and General Gordon's special mission to the same place, appeared to him to be items of account which required more explanation than Her Majesty's Government had given down to the present, so far as his knowledge extended. Lord Dufferin had gone on a special mission; and, so far as he (Mr. O'Donnell) was aware, the only net result of that mission had been a piece of literary composition on the part of Lord Dufferin, containing a great many recommendations. All those recommendations, or, at any rate, all the principal recommendations contained in Lord Dufferin's Report had been magnificently ignored by Her Majesty's Government. To the best of his recollection, Lord Dufferin had proposed that a bonâ fide system of Constitutionalism, or, at least, of popular Government, should be tried in Egypt. Could Her Majesty's Government afford the Committee any information as to how far the establishment of a Government in conformity 1768 with the wishes of the Egyptians had proceeded down to the latest date? In reply to a Question which had been put in the House, in regard to the appointment of a magistrate in Ireland to a high position in Egypt, it had been stated that that appointment had been made on the recommendation of Earl Spencer and Earl Granville; but he (Mr. O'Donnell) was not aware that the wishes of the Egyptian people had been in the slightest degree considered from beginning to end. If, then, Lord Duffer in had only been sent to Egypt on a sort of pleasure tour, without any particular object, he did not see why this country should be called on to pay the expenses. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the county of Waterford (Mr. Villiers Stuart) had imposed on himself a special mission in Egypt, and had written books on the subject, and published them; but the cost of these books and of these travels did not appear in the Public Estimates. What, he wished to know, was the object the Government had in view in sending Lord Dufferin to Egypt? If they had an object, and if Lord Dufferin had carried out his commission in conformity with the wishes of Her Majesty's Government, why had no attention been paid to his recommendations? At any rate, could the Government say at what particular point they commenced to disagree with the recommendations of their special Envoy? Manifestly, it would be simply tempting the Treasury to unaccustomed acts of extravagance if the Committee were to allow them to place any Vote they pleased on the Estimates, however notorious it might be that such Vote was represented by no practical result whatsoever. He was also anxious to know for what object Admiral Sir William Hewett went to Abyssinia? The Abyssinian question was one of great importance. No country in that part of the world had suffered more from the polity of the Government than that country. Was Sir William Hewett authorized to redress any of its wrongs? Were any negotiations entered into with the Abyssinian Rulers; and, if so, what was the object of those negotiations, and what had been the outcome of them? He did not wish to press Her Majesty's Government for information unduly; but when they were asked to pay large sums out of the public taxes, it was only reason- 1769 able to expect that some explanation of those sums should be afforded. Could the Government give him any information as to how far Lord Dufferin's recommendations had been carried out, or whether they were to be carried out, or with what object Lord Dufferin had been sent to Egypt?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, he hardly thought that the Committee would desire, after the debates which had taken place in that House, to go into the question of Lord Dufferin's mission to Egypt. The matter was fully gone into last year; and, with regard to any particular plan his Lordship might have recommended, the Committee should remember that full information had been laid before the House from time to time in the Parliamentary Papers. As to the institutions Lord Dufferin had recommended, the Papers laid on the Table at the beginning of the Session—"Egypt, No. 1 (1884)."—showed up to what point the representative institutions to which the hon. Member (Mr. O'Donnell) had alluded had been got into working order. No doubt, as he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had fully acknowledged in the debate on the Vote of Censure, recent events in Egypt had, to a certain extent, delayed the full working of those institutions; but the hon. Member's assumption that they had been abandoned was altogether unfounded. The Papers laid before the House showed that the first meeting of the Legislative Assembly had been held, that the President had been appointed, and that it was proceeding to business. As to Admiral Sir William Hewett's mission to Abyssinia, the hon. Member, he was afraid, must have been absent from the House during the discussion in the afternoon, because he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had particularly alluded to the subject in his speech, fully explaining the object of the mission, stating that he did so because the money to be asked for the mission was in the Vote the Committee were to be asked to pass. He had explained what the differences of opinion between the Egyptian Government and Her Majesty's Government were, what were the grievances of Abyssinia against this country, and what were the particular points on which it was hoped they would be able to make an arrangement. He did not suppose 1770 the Committee would wish him to go over the same ground twice in one day; therefore, he hoped the hon. Member would not insist on his repeating the explanations he had given. Had the hon. Member been present that afternoon, no doubt, he would not now have asked these questions.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he saw an item of £750 included in the Vote for "Expenses in connection with trials at Alexandria." What was this expenditure for—for prosecuting, or defending the prisoners?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the sum was for the expenses of Sir Charles Wilson and Major Macdonald, who watched the trials on behalf of the Government. He had already explained that Sir Charles Wilson was placed there to see that justice was done—to see that nothing unfair was done to the persons who were being tried; and Major Macdonald's position he had also explained.
§ MR. MOLLOYasked, whether it was not the fact that, besides the sum in the Vote, Sir Charles Wilson and Major Macdonald were in receipt of salaries?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that that was so; but these gentlemen had been put to extra expense in the discharge of this special duty, which was one of a very onerous and trying kind. He must say that no one ever deserved greater credit for the performance of a difficult public duty than Sir Charles Wilson. This official had been remarkable for the great amount of skill, temper, and patience he had shown in the discharge of delicate and difficult duties.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, it was not denied that these gentlemen were in receipt of salaries. He wished to know what was the character of the expenses to which they were put, and that this £750 was supposed to cover?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, that these gentlemen had been put to special expenses on account of having to come away from their ordinary occupations, and having to go to Alexandria to perform these special duties, for which they received special remuneration. The ordinary salaries which they were receiving were simply the salaries of military men performing a particular kind of duty. The duty in regard to which this Vote was charged 1771 was a special one of an arduous kind, for which these gentlemen were especially fitted through their knowledge of the people and the circumstances of the country.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, he wished to know whence these gentlemen had been taken—where they had come from? Who presided at the trials, and did the person who presided receive a salary, and were his expenses paid?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, that Sir Charles Wilson was first employed in the Consular Service in Asia Minor. He was originally sent out by the late Government; and he was selected for the duties in Egypt because of his great knowledge of Oriental habits and customs, and because it was not only felt that he would possess the confidence of the Egyptian and British Governments, but that everybody in Egypt would feel that, under his care, the interests of all concerned would be protected in the trials.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he wished for an explanation of the item—"Colonel Mansfield's expenses in connection with the celebration of the Bolivar centenary, £200?" What was the Bolivar centenary, and what had we to do with it?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, that it was held under these circumstances. Bolivar was a great patriot in South America, and a great celebration in connection with his name was held this year in Venezeula. It was looked upon as a celebration at which all the peoples of South America—who considered, and rightly enough, that they were under great obligations to that patriot—should be represented. There was hardly a single Government in South America who did not send a special mission. The United States were to be represented; and it was felt that England, having taken such a great part in asserting the liberty and independence of these people in the beginning of the present century, ought to be represented. An allowance was therefore made to the British Minister, to enable him to take his part with the other Ministers in the celebration.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had not clearly explained the nature of the transactions in respect of which Sir Charles Wilson and Major Macdonald received this money. He had not told 1772 them how long these gentlemen had been occupied at Alexandria, and where they had come from. He (Mr. Biggar) should like to know whether the trial of Suleiman Sami was one of those that these gentlemen had supervized; and, whether, or not, the noble Lord was thoroughly satisfied with the proceedings in that particular case? Did not the noble Lord think the conduct of these two gentlemen more or less deserving of censure for the part they had taken in that transaction?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the statement he had made as to Sir Charles Wilson was this—that he was employed in Asia Minor, and was sent to Egypt to perform certain duties in connection more especially with these trials. The trials were those which were the subject of the observations of several hon. Members, particularly of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson)—that was to say, of those who were spoken of as the political prisoners. Major Macdonald was employed more especially on the later trials, where the offenders were brought forward in connection with injury to person and property. Amongst these was the trial of Suleiman Sami; and, with regard to the employment of Major Macdonald in connection with that matter, people who took very different views as to the policy of the trial were at one in the opinion that this officer had performed his duties in a manner worthy of the highest credit.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, that notwithstanding the assurance of the noble Lord, that Major Macdonald had discharged his duties in a manner satisfactory to everybody, it was beyond all question that these trials had given great dissatisfaction. No explanation had yet been given as to how the expenses had been incurred. Alexandria was not so far from Asia Minor that it would cost a large sum to get from one place to the other. He could not imagine how this money could have been spent by gentlemen who were already in receipt of a salary, and he therefore thought it his duty to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £750.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £26,850, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment
1773
during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."—(Mr. Kenny.)
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was certain the noble Lord opposite (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had intended the explanation he had given to be perfectly clear and satisfactory, and he could only attribute his failure to make it clear to the general obscurity which surrounded the whole of the Egyptian policy of Her Majesty's Government. They must regard the noble Lord as the victim of his surroundings. On the special question which had been raised by the Amendment, he (Mr. O'Donnell) must certainly express his entire concurrence with the objection raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny). Besides the fact that no case had been made out for the granting of this sum of money to officers who were already well provided for by their ordinary salaries, they could not close their eyes to the fact that these two gentlemen had lent the appearance of their impartiality to what was nothing more nor less than a system of judicial murder, carried out by a beaten tyrant, who had been replaced by British bayonets on the Throne of Egypt. These so-called trials—arrangements just about as deserving of the name of trials as certain drum-head exhibitions that disgraced the period of 1798 in Ireland—were held in the name of the Government of the nominal Khedive, Tewfik, who had no authority, nor power, nor right to issue any commission of the kind, for he had no authority, being merely a puppet of the English garrison. If these trials had been held openly, in the name of Her Majesty's Government, of course there would have been this odium arising, that Major Macdonald would have submitted to a form of trial prisoners of war, and executed those prisoners of war, for acts of war. In order to get out of that difficulty, Her Majesty's Government allowed their puppet, Tewfik, and his advisers—had instructed, ordered, or commanded him, for he had no initiative of his own—to set on foot the so-called tribunal for the trial of a certain number of prisoners of war captured in the recent rebellion. It was to be remembered that the rebellion was thoroughly successful, and that, according 1774 to every principle of British law, it was the Rebellion that was the Government. The Rebellion was the de facto Government, the authority of Tewfik having entirely ceased. Her Majesty's Government it was who caused Tewfik to set on foot this scheme of trials; and before a mock Court were arraigned a number of prisoners on charges of civil crime, such, for instance, as the alleged destruction of a portion of Alexandria, which was calculated, if left standing, to afford shelter to the invading army—an operation of war perfectly legitimate according to the laws of every civilized country. Matters of that kind were treated as crimes, and officers and soldiers accused of having a share in those operations of war were brought up before these mock tribunals like prisoners guilty of the ordinary offence of incendiaryism. That farce, which could not have existed a moment but for the countenance it got from the nominally impartial authority of officers like Major Macdonald, resulted in a most bloody tragedy; because, before these sham tribunals, officers of a recently successful National Army—successful against local tyranny, although not successful against a foreign invader—were tried and, in some cases, sentenced to death. Sir Charles Wilson and Major Macdonald might be said to have inaugurated this policy of make-believe which had resulted in such terrible consequences to Egypt at the present day. The House of Commons had not been consulted on the question of the appointment of these officers, or as to the institution of the tribunals at which they assisted. The House never even obtained an opportunity of considering the evidence upon which men were done to death by these mock tribunals. He remembered, very distinctly, a Motion being made in that House by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), pleading only for time for the House to consider the evidence against a prisoner of war—Colonel Suleiman Sami—who was about to be done to death by the defeated tyrant and his enemies, whom that same Suleiman Sami had helped to drive out of Egypt. As to the Vote, it was impossible to allow items of this kind to pass without protest. Of course, there was some credit due to the Government for not saddling Egypt with the cost of Colonel 1775 Macdonald's participation in this mock justice; but no mere recognition of the comparative honesty of openly laying the charge on the British taxpayer would have induced him to refrain from pressing, as far as the Forms of the House permitted, his opposition to this Vote. Sami, in reality, had been executed for doing his duty as a soldier in opposition to a Native tyrant, and, nominally, without his orders, against foreign invaders who, without the slightest colour of law or right, destroyed Alexandria. Suleiman Sami had a share in endeavouring to render Alexandria untenable by a foreign enemy, and in that he was only doing his duty. If, in a similar case, an English fortress were in danger of falling into the hands of a foreign enemy, it would be in the highest degree an English officer's duty, when the town was no longer tenable for defence, to destroy so much of it as might afford shelter to the invaders. At the most, Suleiman Sami only did an act of that description, and for doing that act, which it was within his right and his duty to do as a soldier, he was brought before a mock tribunal. The verdict of that tribunal obtained a certain air of respectability from the fact of an English officer like Major Macdonald sitting upon it. The very defence brought forward by the Government for Major Macdonald rendered it more incumbent upon upright and independent Members of the House to vote against an item of expenditure which was the final result of as black a proceeding as had ever been committed even in the assassination policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 71: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 41.) [11.10 B.M.]
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, why, in the Supplementary Estimates for the present year, there should be so large a sum as £7,340, for certain outfits payable on the retirement of three gentlemen from the Diplomatic Service? He observed that £4,000 was the amount of the original Estimate; how was it that, in a Supplementary Estimate, there should be so large a sum, nearly double the original sum; and, how did it happen 1776 that the information was wanting in the preparation of the original Estimate?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, this was a very natural question to put. The fact was, there was considerable movement in the Diplomatic Service during the autumn, and it was quite impossible previously to get at the exact extent of it; and, in consequence, it was inevitable that an unusually large portion of the sum payable on outfits should be charged in the Supplementary Estimate. No doubt, it was unusually large this year, owing to the numerous changes in the Diplomatic Service which had recently taken place. The whole subject of these outfits had been often discussed; and the rules in relation thereto were well known to the Committee, for a Committee sat in the Parliament before last in reference to the arrangements of the Diplomatic Body. The principal changes which had led to these payments were the appointments to Italy, to Vienna, to Japan, and Sir Evelyn Baring's appointment to Egypt, and the reconstruction that took place in the ranks of the Diplomatic Body in consequence.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (2.) £155, Suez Canal (British Directors).
§ MR. MONKsaid, before the Vote was passed, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question in regard to it. On Wednesday, last a meeting of the Suez Canal Company took place, when the Convention between the Suez Canal Company and the Shipowners' Association was confirmed by a very narrow majority. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question with regard to the vote on that occasion. There were, he believed, about 1,604 votes recorded then, and the majority was 82. The 1,604 votes recorded represented only something less than one-fifth of the whole of the number of votes that might have been recorded. Probably, the Committee were aware no one was entitled to vote at one of those meetings who did not hold 25 shares, and the holder of those 25 shares was entitled to one vote. But a most singular point in the statutes of the Company was that no person who was the holder of any number of shares, however large, was entitled to more than 10 votes, whether he was the owner of the shares 1777 himself, or held them by proxies from others. It was the most extraordinary rule he ever heard of in any Public Company. Usually Directors invited shareholders to send in proxies to the Directors; but, here, no shareholder was entitled to record more than 10 votes. At the general meeting 10 votes only represented 250 shares and when it was found that only a fifth of the whole number who were entitled to vote were represented, it was rather an extraordinary state of things. Of course, he did not take into consideration the 177,000 shares which were held by the Government of this country. What he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, whether there were not any facilities, or, whether the Government, through the Directors appointed by Her Majesty's Government, could not offer some facilities, for shareholders in this country to deposit their shares with those Directors, so that their votes might be available at the subsequent meeting of the Company? The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be aware that, at the meeting the other day, one of the most important subjects brought before the meeting was unable to be put to the vote, because a majority of two-thirds was necessary to alter any of the statutes of the Company. Now, in order that the Company should have seven additional Directors, it was necessary to alter the statute. The original number was 32 Directors, reduced in 1871 to 21. In order that this country should be properly represented, more than the three Directors at present nominated by Her Majesty's Government were needed; and, with that view, it was necessary that the statute providing the number should be altered, and that could not be done without a majority of two-thirds voting in its favour. Therefore, he wished to ask, whether the Government could not, through their Directors, or in some other manner, offer facilities to shareholders, who were becoming very numerous in this country, to deposit their shares five days, or whatever interval was appointed, before the general meeting, so that this country might have the just weight and voting power to which it was entitled at the meetings of the shareholders?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said, he was not quite sure whether he was in Order in answering this question on a Vote 1778 which was only for the travelling expenses of the Directors; but, as the question had been asked, perhaps he might be allowed to answer it. The fact was that the ordinary rules of French Companies were quite different from those of English Companies, and the Suez Canal Company, though not technically a French Company, but an Egyptian, was framed on the French model. Under the French customary rule, a person holding a large number of shares would not get votes in proportion to his holding when compared with small shareholders. This was in the statutes of the Suez Canal Company, and he believed what took place the other day was in strict accordance with the statutes. The hon. Member (Mr. Monk) asked if the Government could facilitate any arrangement under which the English votes could be recorded. It was reasonable that those persons living in England should have the power to deposit their votes in the same way as those resident in Paris. He thought that might be done; but he would take care to inquire.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he desired to ask a further question in reference to the meeting last week.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he did not think that would be in Order on this Vote, which was simply for the travelling expenses of the Directors.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, but it was to enable the Directors to go to Paris to look after the interests of the British shareholders in the Suez Canal Company, and his question referred to that. What would be the position of affairs supposing, as seemed likely, the shareholders favourable to the arrangement with the British Shipowners' Association were not able to carry their measure by a majority of two-thirds? Would the scheme fall to the ground, or would another be substituted?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS), in reply, said, he was not prepared to say what might happen in this contingency.
THE CHAIRMANThe difficulty in this matter, I may point out, arises entirely from the difference in the Vote as submitted to the Committee and the statement contained in the Estimates on which the Vote is founded. The Estimate, as the right hon. Gentleman the 1779 Chancellor of the Exchequer has observed, is on account of the travelling expenses of the Directors; but the Vote put to the Committee is for "Salaries and Expenses" of the three Representatives of the Government on the administration of the Suez Canal Company. The Vote so put ought to be open to the discussion of matters involved in the salaries and expenses of the three Representatives.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (3.) £13,700, Supplementary sum, Colonies, Grants in Aid.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, there was an item in the Vote of £2,000, in connection with the judicial expenses of the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific; and he would like to have from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) some explanation of the precise object for which that Vote was required. He would also like Her Majesty's Government to tell the Committee, if they could, something as to their intentions in reference to this High Commissionership. There had lately been presented an able and interesting Report from a Commission appointed to inquire into the working of the Pacific Islanders' Protection Act. Looking at that Report, it would be seen how very much the Pacific Commission had failed in its proper work of suppressing the grave evils of the labour traffic in the Western Pacific. When the High Commissioner, Sir Arthur Gordon, was appointed, he was Governor of Fiji; but that post he subsequently resigned, and he was then appointed Governor of New Zealand, and remained so for some time. It was a most anomalous proceeding that he should be appointed Governor of New Zealand, and allowed to retain the office of High Commissioner of the Western Pacific. It was almost as impossible for him to fulfil the duties of both these offices as it would be for him to superintend the Pacific from Ceylon. He was not blaming Sir Arthur Gordon; he blamed the Government. He did not know if anybody else had been appointed to fill the office of High Commissioner since the time, more than three years ago, when Sir Arthur Gordon was appointed Governor of New Zealand. He did not know at the moment who 1780 was High Commissioner. [Mr. EVELYN-ASHLEY said, the Governor of Fiji.] Well, what did the Royal Commission report on this point? They reported that the operation of the Orders in Council was hampered by the union of the office of Governor of Fiji with that of High Commissioner, and they distinctly recommended the separation of those two offices; they stated that a sufficient number of Assistant Commissioners had not been appointed, and that the inadequacy of the staff was due to the insufficiency of the funds devoted to the maintenance of the High Commissionership. They said there were two points in the Pacific—the Friendly Islands and Samoa—where the operation of the Orders in Council were fairly successful, and these happened to be the places where Assistant Commissioners resided. The principal recommendation of the Commission was the appointment of a High Commissioner and a Judicial Commissioner, not hampered by other offices, who should reside in places suitable for the performance of their duty; and the appointment of additional Deputy Commissioners who should reside in different parts of the Pacific where their services were required, and be furnished with the proper means of travelling through their districts to see that the Orders in Council were properly carried out. They had a further recommendation as to the simplification of the Orders in Council, and the appointment of labour agents, and a better system of labour licences, so as to put down as far as might be the evils of the labour traffic. These recommendations should receive the very early attention of Her Majesty's Government; and what he hoped to hear from the Under Secretary of State was that the Report of this Commission had at once been taken into consideration, and that action on it would not be delayed pending the consideration by the Australian Colonies of the scheme of a Federal Council suggested by Lord Derby. Any such delay as that, lasting as it might for more than a year, would not be justified. The evils referred to could be dealt with entirely apart from any proposal with regard to the annexation of New Guinea, and the suggestion of Lord Derby as to concerted action by the Australian Colonies. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give some promise that it was the intention of Government, at the earliest 1781 moment, to deal with this most important subject.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he concurred entirely with his right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) as to the inutility of uniting the office of Governor of New Zealand with that of High Commissioner; but he believed that had been altered, and that the Governor of Fiji was now High Commissioner. He understood, some time ago, that the view of the Government was that they could not act upon the Report they had received until they had learned and considered the result of the Federal Convention which had met in Australia; but, he should like to ask, why could they not proceed at once to appoint Deputy Commissioners in respect to Islands in which the High Commissioner had now the power to act? He was perfectly aware that the Australian Colonies desired the annexation of other Islands; but that was no reason why we should hold our hands in respect to Islands where an active trade was carried on, and in respect to which we had hitherto acted. He would ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to state more fully to the Committee why the Government should refrain from acting, in part, on the Report of the Commission, because they had not received the result of the Australian Convention?
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he would first explain the item with regard to legal expenses. It was a case which arose when Sir Arthur Gordon was High Commissioner. He, acting under a clause in the Pacific Islands' Orders in Council, and having had brought to his notice that a man called Hunt was disturbing the Island of Samoa, and acting in a manner dangerous to the peace and order of that place, ordered his removal. Hunt was brought before the proper Court and fined £500. Still, this having no effect, he was forcibly removed by order of Sir Arthur Gordon; but Sir Arthur Gordon made a slip in that order. He was empowered under the clause to remove any such person in custody to any place named as in the Western Pacific Islands. By an error in the order, Hunt was taken to Levuka, and that was in Fiji, and not under the Western Pacific Orders in Council. On that, an action was brought against Sir Arthur Gordon, and given against him. 1782 There was a re-hearing, and the accumulated costs given against Sir Arthur Gordon. The costs, he was sorry to say, came to a very large amount—£2,600. Of course, Her Majesty's Government felt bound to bear the responsibility of their officer's action, and the expense; but this Vote would settle the matter, as there would be no further appeal. As to the general matter of the High Commissioner, he recognized, with Her Majesty's Government, the value of many of the remarks of the Committee, but did not agree with some of the recommendations. As to the appointment of a separate High Commissioner, apart from the Governorship of Fiji or New Zealand, Her Majesty's Government thought that was a recommendation of importance, and he hoped shortly to announce the name of a High Commissioner, apart from any Governorship. He would point out to the right hon. Baronet opposite, who wanted to know why this question was interwoven with the question of Colonial Conventions, how many points would be greatly affected by action which might be taken in consequence of a Convention. The first question was that of expense. Anything the Government might do at all commensurate with the demands of the Western Pacific would involve a large expense indeed; and if they had the Australian Colonies contributing, then pro tanto the Government could do a great deal more. One of the principal difficulties of the Pacific Commission was that they had no control over foreigners. Over British subjects and Natives they had; but over foreigners they could have none without some international arrangement. He need hardly point out how very much the whole position might be affected if the Australian Colonies federated and acted in co-operation with Her Majesty's Government. The Resolutions of the Australian Convention would be submitted to the respective Legislatures; and he was informed by the Agents General, that they hoped that Bills founded upon those Resolutions, if adopted, would be passed by next June, so as to allow Her Majesty's Government to introduce, in this present Session, an Imperial Act recognizing the binding together of an Australian Federation.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, this was a subject to which he had lately given a 1783 great deal of consideration, and he was greatly afraid that the sketch of policy which had just been made by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) was one which would be viewed with something more than doubt by every friend of the Native population in the Western Pacific. The Minister looked forward to legislation founded upon conclusions arrived at by the Australian Colonies; but it was exactly the Australian Colonies that were the great danger to the Native population of the Western Pacific. It was in order to supply the labour to the wealthy planters and employers in Australia that the Islands of the Western Pacific were being ravaged by traffic hunters, who really were the most odious description of slavers. What concurrence could they expect from the Legislature of Queensland? Throughout Queensland the Native witness, the imported Polynesian, was not considered fit to give testimony before a magistrate of the Colony; no matter what ill treatment he might receive from his employer, he was not considered competent to give evidence. Legally, he believed, it had been held that a Polynesian might give evidence, if the magistrate was satisfied that he was a person who had a moral sense of the obligation of truth-telling; but the point was that the employer magistrate of Queensland could not be persuaded that a Polynesian had the requisite moral faculty of testifying to his own ill-usage at the hands of his employer. The Minister hoped that Australia would bear a portion of the expense of maintaining the police of the Western Pacific. If Australia were to pay any share of the expenses of maintaining the police of the Western Pacific, that police would be exceedingly badly maintained. It was well known that the police were hand and glove with the labour traffickers; indeed, the Chargé d' Affaires in London complained that all kinds of outrages were committed on labour traffic vessels, with the full cognizance and connivance, forsooth, of the very men who were on board for the ostensible purpose of repressing them. The Commission recommended Her Majesty's Government to take upon themselves the whole burden of responsibility and expense of the police of the Western Pacific. What a mockery it 1784 was to be expending the hundreds and thousands of pounds in suppressing slavery in Oriental countries, while, in the Western Pacific, a most odious system of slavery was carried on by British subjects, and Her Majesty's Government shrunk from an expenditure of £50,000 or £100,000 which might be required to put the system down. The Royal Navy might be usefully employed in the police work of this Archipelago. The Minister also pointed out the difficulty of dealing with foreigners. If the British. Government dealt with the British subjects, so much of the evil would be removed. Her Majesty's Government might count on the support of Germany in putting down the slavery he complained of. Most of the Native outrages which called for the interference of Her Majesty's Government were outrages brought about by a feeling of revenge in consequence of the acts of slave dealers, the acts of British desperadoes from all kinds of British Colonies, engaged in making money by a practical system of slavery. If Her Majesty's Government put off dealing with this feeling until they could get the hearty co-operation of the Australian employers, in whose interest slave vessels were trading, Her Majesty's Government would be parties to the continuance of a horrible system, which was depopulating one of the fairest regions of the world, and which was cursing one of the most simple and peaceful Native populations with every cruelty and vice common to the very lowest kinds of civilized humanity.
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYfeared the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. O'Donnell) spoke from imperfect information. So far from the Australian Colonies, with the exception of Queensland, being interested in the labour traffic, they would probably do much to discountenance and suppress it.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLER. (LORD MAYOR)said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had alluded to one point which was well worthy of the attention of the Committee. The point was as to what weight was to be given to the testimony of the Natives. In dealing with these unfortunate people they were dealing with a class of men of no education and men whose testimony might, to a certain extent, require great sifting. It ought 1785 not to be assumed that, as a matter of course, a White man's story was right, while the Native's testimony was wrong. In that respect, he wished to emphasize the remarks of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. He hoped the attention of the authorities would be given to the question of how much credit was to be given to the testimony of Native witnesses.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) that, however erroneous his views were, they were not formed upon one-sided evidence or upon the evidence of the people of the British nationality. He was prepared to supply the hon. Gentleman with one piece of evidence, and that was to the effect that, to a considerable extent, the system of labour traffic, and, to a very large extent, the system of land occupation in the Native Islands, were bound up with the interests of the influential classes and persons in all the Australian Colonies.
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYasked if the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was aware that the Australian Colonies had, at the Convention, passed a self-denying Resolution to the effect that they would discourage all occupation of land on the part of White people?
§ MR. O'DONNELLasked if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) was not aware that every Colonial Establishment of the British West and every Legislative Assembly had passed Resolutions of the most exemplary virtue with regard to the treatment of Native races, but that, in practice, it was found that our Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific subjects required quite as much looking after as subjects of Her Britannic Majesty nearer home.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,327, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for certain Charges connected with the Orange River Territory, the Transvaal, Zululand, and the Island of St. Helena.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that when the question of the Transvaal Convention was last brought under the 1786 consideration of the House, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) made certain announcements which were somewhat gratifying to the House, and added that other matters to which he could not then refer would be considered, and a decision respecting them would shortly be arrived at. Now, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would only allude to two of those other matters. First of all, they found in the Convention, the text of which had now been presented to the House, that the debt due from the Transvaal Government to this country, which already had been reduced in the most liberal way by several concessions to the Transvaal Government, had been further reduced by about the sum of £130,000. He did not wish to quarrel with that further reduction; but he thought that they ought to know what was the ground for it, because the Papers which had been presented contained no argument whatever by the Transvaal Delegates which proved the inability of their country to pay the debt. No reason was given why the Transvaal should be excused the £130,000, and, so far as he could observe, no statement had been made of the grounds which had induced Her Majesty's Government to remit it. The second point was one of greater importance, inasmuch as it related to the position of the Natives within the Transvaal. The Committee would remember that, at the time the original Transvaal Convention was settled, Sir Hercules Robinson, by authority of Her Majesty's Government, announced to those Natives within the Transvaal, who had hitherto been Her Majesty's subjects, that it would be one of the British Resident's special duties to see that the provisions of the Convention in their favour were carried out, and that they might rest assured that, though the country was about to be handed back to its former Rulers, their interests would never be forgotten or neglected by Her Majesty's Government, or by Her Majesty's Representative in South Africa. What was the position of these Natives now? The Resident was absolutely gone. There was to be no one in the Transvaal representing Her Majesty's Government, or able to pay any regard to the interests of the Natives, except, possibly, a Consul or Consular Agent; 1787 and the sole provision in the new Convention affecting the matter was contained in the 19th Article, by which the Government of the South African Republic engaged faithfully to maintain the assurances given to the Natives as to their freedom to buy or otherwise acquire land, as to the appointment of a Commission to make out Native Locations, as to the access of Natives to Courts of Law, and as to their being allowed to move freely within the country, or to leave it for any legal purpose under a pass system. The special duties which, by the original Convention, were incumbent upon the Resident were of very material importance. It was provided that the Resident and the President of the Transvaal, together with a third person to be named by them jointly, should form the Native Location Commission. That Native Location Commission had not only to fix the boundaries of the Native Locations, but to act as a standing body of Trustees, through whom alone the Natives could hold land. Well, now, very little of the work of the Native Location Commission had been actually done. There was a statement in the Blue Books recently published, showing with what great success the Native Location Commission had given out a tract of land of something like 40,000 acres in extent, to one tribe in the Transvaal, and the prosperous circumstances in which, accordingly, that tribe was situated. As far as he was aware, that was the single instance in which the Commission had done any work. Was it to be left in future to a Commission appointed by the Transvaal Government alone, to settle the new Locations and to act as Trustees for Natives holding land within the Transvaal? If that was so, he thought an injustice would have been done to the Natives of the Transvaal, and that Her Majesty's Government had given up, in the new Convention, a matter which was of great importance to the interests of Her Majesty's former subjects, and had deprived themselves of a right, the exercise of which would have been most valuable to the Transvaal Natives. He also wanted to impress on the Government some points relating to that part of the Convention which was understood, when they formerly discussed this matter, to have been satisfactorily arranged. The House were then 1788 told that the Transvaal Delegates had agreed to exclude from the Transvaal territory the trade route from Cape Colony to the interior of the country, and also the whole of the territory belonging to the friendly Bechuana Chiefs who had formerly been our allies, and that that would be secured not only by the assurances of the Transvaal Government, but by a Commissioner, aided by a body of police, in British and Colonial pay, to prevent the raids of freebooters. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had then stated his satisfaction with this arrangement, although it imposed a great responsibility upon this country; but he certainly supposed that the agreement had been come to with the full concurrence of the Transvaal Delegates. It appeared, however, that Lord Derby originally proposed to the Transvaal Delegates not only that the boundary should be fixed as it had been fixed by the Convention, but that, after the boundary had been so settled, the Transvaal Government should take effective measures to prevent their citizens from trespassing beyond the frontier, and bear their fair share of the coat of repressing such outrages as had lately occurred. What was the reply of the Delegates to that proposal? They actually had the audacity to ask for the inclusion of the trade routes and the whole of the territories of the friendly Chiefs in the Transvaal. When Lord Derby proposed the terms of the Convention, together with the establishment of the Joint Protectorate of the Imperial Government, the Cape Colony, and the Transvaal, over the territory in question, and the division of the cost among them, they replied that the proposed arrangement would, in their opinion, cause new and more serious complications, and would be dangerous to peace and order in South Africa; that they feared it would cause new trouble and bloodshed; and they preferred that sooner than that boundary line should be taken, the old boundary line should be adhered to as one which, after much bloodshed, had been secured. They further said they were firmly convinced that the modifications recommended would cause more bloodshed, because the tribes would be again torn asunder, and the rights of some would be infringed by other tribes, and, therefore, they could not be accessory to the bloodshed which was easily to be fore- 1789 seen. That was not a free consent to the boundary line laid down in the Convention; and it was probably on this account that the Delegates, in the draft Treaty they sent to Lord Derby, said they were not possessed of full powers to complete a Treaty, but merely presented themselves as Delegates, and the Convention must be subject to ratification by the Volksraad. If any hon. Members cared to look back to the objections raised to the Western boundary laid down in the original Transvaal Convention, they would find them precisely the same as those now urged. What hope, then, was there that this new Convention would be observed? The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had informed the House that he had received a series of telegrams from South Africa, beginning on the 29th January, in one of which it was stated that the freebooters were actually marching to attack Mankaroane's principal town. They had actually heard from another source that the Transvaal Government declined to interfere to prevent the threatened outbreak on the Bechuana Frontier, on the ground that they were not in a position to recognize the new Convention. He did not wish further to dwell on this matter at that hour; but, looking to the opinion expressed by the Transvaal Delegates on the single point on which Her Majesty's Government had felt it necessary to insist, and seeing that the Government had taken no steps to appoint a Commissioner, or a force of police, on whose action the maintenance of the new boundary must depend, he could not attach much greater importance to the boundary laid down in the new Convention than to the boundary in the old Convention. He feared that what had passed did not warrant much hope that the new boundary would be observed, or that the rights of our allies among the Bechuana Chiefs would be respected, as they ought to be respected, through the action of the Government.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he felt that he owed some apology to the Committee for detaining them at so late an hour; but the subject was a very serious one, and full of difficulty, and unless the terms of the new Convention were now discussed, there might be no other opportunity of doing so before 1790 August next. As to the past policy of Her Majesty's Government, he would only refer to it generally, for the purpose of showing what lessons and guidance we ought to derive from it in our future dealings with the South African Republic. The Convention of Pretoria apparently—that was, in terms—protected our Native allies and the loyal Natives, both without and within the Transvaal. They were protected by the limitation of the boundary line, and by the retention of Her Majesty's Suzerainty. But he (Sir Henry Holland), and others, had pointed out that protection, if confined to writing and signing the Convention, and remonstrances of the Resident, would prove of little avail to the Natives, if, as was anticipated, the Boers disregarded the Convention. A Convention which one party was not prepared to enforce was not likely to stand in the way of the other party, if desirous to infringe it. He would venture to read to the Committee, upon this point, some pregnant words of Sir Hercules Robinson in a despatch of November 23rd, 1883, which would be found at page 107 of Parliamentary Papers [Transvaal C, 3845]. He writes—
I am bound to say that I do not think the Convention, under existing; circumstances, is of any real benefit to the Natives. The Transvaal burghers obviously do not intend to observe any condition in it distasteful to themselves, which Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to insist on, if necessary, by the employment of force. Her Majesty's Government, I understand, do not feel justified in proceeding to this extremity; and no provision, therefore, of the Convention which is not agreeable to the Transvaal will be carried out, whilst what is agreeable will be observed without reference to the Convention.There could hardly be a stronger condemnation of the past policy of Her Majesty's Government, and of their want of firmness in dealing with the Boers. What had happened in the past should serve as a warning for the future. Early in this Session he had asked for a declaration from the Government as to the course they would pursue if this new Convention were broken; but the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had declined to give any information, and said that we had no right to assume that the Boers would break this Convention. But, looking to the past, the country would not be satisfied unless the Government make some such declara- 1791 tion. Along with a condonation of past breaches, and with a statement, if the Government desired to guard themselves, of their own belief that like breaches would not occur again, let the country have a distinct statement of the intention of the Government, should breaches occur; and let it be a statement that due observance of this fresh Convention would be enforced. Such a declaration would tend to prevent breaches, while the absence of it would encourage the Transvaal Government to renew their former tactics. Looking to the past they might well doubt the future action of the South African Republic. The Transvaal Government were not satisfied with the Pretoria Convention; they remonstrated against it, and they broke it. The present Delegates were not satisfied, and it might be assumed that the Government which they represented would not be satisfied, with the new Convention. They would not be satisfied until the Sand River Treaty of 1852 was again recognized as the basis of a new arrangement—in other words, until they had complete liberty of action; nor would they be satisfied with the boundary even as altered; and, as had been pointed out, they seemed to prefer the old Convention Frontier line. Must we not then fear that, being dissatisfied with this as with the former Convention, they would again pursue the same tactics and line of conduct as heretofore; that they would foster trivial disputes, and connive at their subjects crossing over the frontier to assist one Native tribe against the other, and then to seize land and settle down on it beyond the frontier line, as in the case of Stellaland and Goschen? He (Sir Henry Holland) could not view the present state of things as at all satisfactory. In the first place, the chances of peace and order were greatly diminished by the establishment of the now United Republic of Stellaland and Goschen; a Republic composed of freebooters and adventurers from the Transvaal, Orange Free States, the Cape, and even Europe. Was that "robber" Republic, as Sir Hercules Robinson called it, to be recognized; or, even if it were not recognized, were these freebooters to be allowed to keep their stolen property, the land which they had seized from the Natives? "What check was to be kept, and by whom, upon their proceedings? Something 1792 could be learned from the Correspondence of the views of Her Majesty's Government. But there was nothing stated in the proposed Convention, although part of this Republic fell within the new boundary line of the Transvaal. He thought that some special and clear understanding upon these points should have been arrived at, and embodied in the Convention, if future complications were to be avoided. Would not the South African Republic, directly or indirectly, compel the freebooters—not very desirable subjects, but who would now be within the Transvaal—to cross over the border? If so, there would be great danger of disorder arising in the land outside the frontier, and great danger of ruin to the Native Chiefs, against whose territories these freebooters would surely move. Would the vague language of Article 2 of the Convention prevent that? He thought not. And it must be observed that there was no distinct engagement in writing by the Delegates to the reasonable understanding mentioned by Lord Derby in his letter to the Delegates, of January 25, 1884, which ran as follows:—If, then, you accept the boundary offered by Her Majesty's Government, it must be understood that you do so without any reservation, and under an honourable engagement that the State will co-operate loyally with Her Majesty's Government by enforcing order within its own borders, and by preventing its subjects from making encroachments on the Native territories beyond the borders of the Transvaal State, as expressly provided in the 19th Article of the Convention of Pretoria.He would like to have seen some clause to this effect inserted in the Convention; but the Delegates evaded this point, and only assented to the three conditions which had been put forward by themselves. He (Sir Henry Holland) wished to know what Her Majesty's Government proposed to do under Article 2 of this Convention? He gathered that they assented to the suggestion made by Sir Hercules Robinson, to treat all land outside the frontier line as an independent Native territory under the joint protection of Great Britain, the Transvaal, and the Cape Colony. But he observed that the Cape Government only assented to assist in this joint protection, if the Transvaal Government consented to join. There were, however, no signs that the Transvaal Government had or would consent to join; and, indeed, the 1793 terms of the third condition above referred to seemed opposed to any operation of the Transvaal Government beyond the frontier. It was, then, quite possible that Her Majesty's Government would have the sole protection and responsibility for this territory outside the frontier line; and the Committee were entitled to have a clear answer from the Government to the following questions:—First, if the Transvaal Government and the Cape Government declined to assist in a joint protection, would Her Majesty's Government undertake alone to protect the territory outside the frontier; and, secondly, would such protection, whether sole or joint, extend to the territories of Mankoroane and Montsioa, or only to that large part of Stella-laud and Goschen left outside the frontier? Another unsatisfactory point in these negotiations was the position of our Native allies, Mankoroane and Montsioa. It was not merely that each had lost some part of his territory, be-cause such loss could well be borne, and would be amply compensated for, if peace and order were thereby secured to them in the territories left under their power. But would such peace and order be secured? We had stood by while Stellaland and Goschen were created, and now we had accounts that an attack was threatened, if not actually accomplished, against Mankoroane by persons from that Republic. This boded ill for future peace and order; and the more so, as the territory of the aggressive South African Republic would now intrude between these two Chiefs, and thus lessen their power of resistance, while exposing them more readily to attack. He contended that something more definite in favour of these Chiefs should have been inserted in the Convention. He would conclude by a reference to Zululand, which was included in the Estimate now under consideration; and he would ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the real state of affairs there; whether the Government intended to allow the present state of disorder and fighting to continue; whether they would allow Usibepu to be left to fight it out with the Usutos, who had been supported, and wrongly sent against him, by the Government protégé, Cetewayo; and whether they did not think it high time to intervene and 1794 restore order in that unfortunate country?
§ MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, he wished to know whether the Government had any news confirmatory of the report of an attack upon Mankoroane? He had repeatedly called attention to the misdeeds of the Boers, and he was anxious for another opportunity. He had a Notice on the Paper dealing with the subject; but that was not likely to come to anything; therefore, unless he now made a few observations on the subject, he might find himself precluded from doing so for the rest of the Session. He wished to express his deep regret at the fact that Her Majesty's Government had entered into a Treaty with a body of men who were—and this, he thought, hon. Members would not dispute—amongst the greatest slaveholders in the world. On a former occasion, the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) was supposed to be a great advocate of these people; and he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had been glad to hear him confess that he was not their advocate, and was not prepared to stand up in the House and defend the misdeeds of the most atrocious slaveholders in the world. Her Majesty's Government had been unfortunately induced to enter into a Treaty with these people. His opinion was that if we had done our duty by them, and had never had anything to do with the Treaty of Pretoria, a great deal of the bloodshed they had been discussing in the earlier part of the evening would never have happened. That bloodshed had occurred through our having given in. It was supposed that, under the Pretoria Convention, we had gained a great point by getting the Boers to style themselves the Transvaal State, giving up the notion of calling themselves the South African Republic. The Boers had been prepared to pay us a certain amount of debt, and to allow a Resident at Pretoria to protect the interests of the Native races; but all these points had been given up. These people had entered into a solemn Treaty; but when they sent a deputation over to England, Her Majesty's Government gave way to them, and abandoned almost everything, including their interest in the Native races. Her Majesty's Government had lost prestige—a word he knew perfectly well they did not like— 1795 but, more than that, they had consented to give up a considerable portion of the debt due from the Transvaal State to this country. In what position did the Natives, whom we had undertaken to defend, stand at this moment? If the Government were prepared to send troops to their assistance, in the way they were doing in another part of the world, for what appeared to be a doubtful object, we and the Natives would stand in a different position; but, having given up all the points to which he had referred, if Her Majesty's Government remained inactive, what would be the position of our unfortunate Native allies? These people had trusted us, depending on the faith of Great Britain, depending on the honour of British officials. They had shed their blood for us, and all to no purpose. We had now abandoned them, leaving them at the mercy of their inveterate enemies. He was very much afraid that the history of the next two or three years would show that many of those who had trusted us had to pay for their implicit confidence by seeing—those of them who survived—their friends slaughtered or ill used, in consequence of our having handed them over to these slaveholding Boers. History would show that we had abandoned them to massacre and bloodshed, and that their misfortunes had all come upon them by trusting to the good faith of British Administrators. A Native Chief had been recently murdered, and he had a Notice of Motion with reference to the matter. [Mr. COURTNEY: Order!] The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury called him to Order for mentioning a matter about which a Notice of Motion had been given. The hon. Member would, perhaps, use his influence with the Government to secure for him (Mr. R. N. Fowler) facilities for discussing the subject at a time when he would be in Order. He most deeply regretted the fact that Her Majesty's Government had entered into a Treaty with a set of slaveholders, whoso word was not to be trusted. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He was glad hon. Members opposite "agreed" with him, and hoped they would make their views felt on the Front Ministerial Bench.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it seemed to him that if the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) proceeded to answer all 1796 the questions which had been put to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor (Mr. R. N. Fowler) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), they would have rather a prolonged Sitting before them. If they were to go into the circumstances of Zululand, the future policy of Cape Colony and Natal, and the frontier question as affecting the Transvaal and the neighbouring territories, and, besides that, were to consider the refurbishing of British honour in South Africa, and the rather complicated question as to how the Government proposed to make amends in South Africa for the disgrace of the Soudan campaign, he was persuaded that hon. Members would never be able to get away in time for Divine Service on Sunday morning. He therefore begged to move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. It was a speaking commentary on the system of administration that prevailed in these days to observe that on a subject of this importance the only two Members who had addressed the House had been almost silenced by drowning cries of "Divide, divide!" and "Agreed, agreed!" coming from Benches which had been empty the greater part of the Sitting, but were now partly filled by hon. Gentlemen, who, apparently, would be much more comfortable than they were now if they were at home. The House had only been sitting five weeks; but anyone would think, looking at the fact that the Government had begun to take Saturday Sittings, and that Members were so impatient, that they had been hard at work for five months. There was a pretty general belief, which he believed to be well founded, that the manner in which Parliamentary Business was at present carried on did not admit of the affairs of Ireland being properly administered.
THE CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has intimated that it is his intention to move to report Progress. I must point out to him that the remarks he is now making are not relevant to that Motion.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was coming to that point. They were actually invited to continue sitting here to consider a Vote relating to the administration of Ireland; and he wished to know—for he presumed some 1797 Minister would speak on behalf of the Government—whether they were to begin considering the Vote when it was already Sunday? If the Government would agree to postpone the Irish Vote, he would not press the Motion for reporting Progress; but if the Government thought hon. Members were to sit there discussing the affairs of South Africa until 2 or 3 o'clock on Sunday morning, and then enter upon a long discussion of the affairs of Ireland, he should persist in his Motion.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur O' Connor.)
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that on Thursday night he had shown, most conclusively, that it was absolutely necessary that the whole of the Supplementary Estimates should be taken on Saturday. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Not at all.] He had shown, step by step, that it was absolutely necessary that the Supplementary Estimates should be disposed of to-night. The Government and their supporters had done their utmost to economize time, and avoid speaking—to speak as little as possible—in order that they might get through the Supplementary Estimates. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies was prepared to reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor, and the series of questions which had been put to him relative to the affairs of South Africa. When this Vote was disposed of, it was proposed to take the one remaining Vote, which it was distinctly understood, by agreement with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), should be taken to-night. Under those circumstances, he must oppose the proposal to report Progress; and he hoped the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who, as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, knew how important it was that their financial rules should be observed, would withdraw his Motion and allow the Vote to be proceeded with.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he would not follow the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer through his elaborate examinations of the arrangements of the financial year in reference to the Appropriation Bill; but 1798 he would point out to the Government that if they insisted on taking the postponed Irish Vote for the County Courts that night, it would be necessary for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to give a full and categorical reply to the questions which had been raised while the Speaker was in the Chair, and which remained unanswered. After his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had spoken, the Chief Secretary for Ireland and six Irish Members subsequently addressed the House in full and argumentative speeches. Several questions of importance were raised, and remained unanswered. They would use all the Forms of the House in resisting the taking of the Vote that night, unless it was accompanied by a full statement on the part of the Government.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the Government were convinced yesterday they would not then be able to get the Vote. There were then a number of Motions before the Speaker could leave the Chair, and it would have been 6 in the morning before the House could have gone into Committee. Again, to-day there were a number of Motions, though all were not brought on. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might think it hard to be kept sitting so long, and so it was. He (Mr. Healy) had himself a Notice of Motion, which he did not bring on, in order that the Irish Vote might be reached within a reasonable time. But the whole of the early part of the Sitting was taken up with quite another subject; while for the Vote in which a small number of Irish Members were interested, they were kept until the end; and now, in about an hour's time, perhaps, they would get to the Vote, and there would be two or three hours of an Irish discussion, with Liberal Members endeavouring to howl it down in order to get to bed. Now, he offered a compromise, and would give an undertaking that they would not attempt to count out the House, if Liberal Members, not interested, would go home to bed.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he had not taken part in the discussion while the Speaker was in the Chair; but he would, with great pleasure, answer any of the observations made by hon. Members in reference to Irish grievances.
§ MR. BIGGAR, said, he could not follow the explanations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the importance of getting the Votes that night; but he certainly understood from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington), in the course of discussing a Saturday Sitting on the previous day, that it was undesirable to take the Votes after to-night, or Monday at the latest. He certainly understood the Vote might as well be taken on Monday as on Saturday. Why, then, after sitting 12½ hours, insist on taking all the Votes? Why not finish the South African Vote, report Progress, and take the Irish Vote on Monday? There was no understanding that the Committee should be kept sitting until 2 or 3 o'clock on Sunday morning to finish the whole of the Votes. It might be possible for a Minister to put a quart into a pint bottle; but it would be exceedingly difficult. Seeing they had reached a time when it would be only decorous to go home, why not do so, when the Business would be properly got through by postponing the Vote.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, what his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) said last night was that he was quite correct in the computation he made and stated to the House, and that the last Vote in Supply must be taken to-night; but he said the Report of some of the Votes might be taken on Monday—the Report, not the Votes. That was correct. The Report of the Votes not taken last night might be taken on Monday.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he had Notice of a very important Motion for that evening; but he had not brought it on, in order to facilitate Public Business. What he had now to say was, to protest against the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom all admired and respected, following in the stops of the Prime Minister, and using arguments similar to those used three years ago, with a success all must remember. The Committee would remember all the arguments about the necessities of the law used on the 14th March, 1881, when the Prime Minister established, to his own satisfaction, that "Urgency" was required to fulfil the requirements of the law. With regard 1800 to this very argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his demonstration, it came to this—that the law required that certain Votes should be passed by March 31, so that everything might be done in order. But the one great failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was this—that he obliterated altogether two days from his calculation. He said the Treasury officials required a day for their own purposes; but the law did not give that, though the Treasury officials wanted it. More than that, the Treasury had Sunday to themselves; but the Government did not scruple to ask the Committee to sit on Sunday morning, in the opinion of many violating a sacred day. Another failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that he had left out of view that it was quite possible for the other House to suspend their Standing Orders, and take two stages of a Bill in one day. But the Government tyrannized over the House, after having taken up time with the nonsense of Grand Committees and Reform Bills, and then hon. Members were asked to sit on Sunday morning. He should support the Motion for reporting Progress, for it was conduct unfair to Irish Members, who were entitled to have a full discussion of the Vote in which they were interested.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, at the time the arrangements for a Saturday Sitting were entered into, they did not foresee the discussion which had taken place early in the Sitting, and the proceedings which had been stigmatized by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in certain terms. The Irish Vote would give rise to considerable discussion; the debate on the question of the Irish magistracy, while the Speaker was in the Chair, referred to one instance only, and the range of discussion was limited; but the Vote would open up the action of the Government on several occasions, and the discussion, if continued, would probably last to 6 in the morning. If the Committee were prepared to go on, then let it be so. What did the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland think of discussing such a subject on a Sunday? He (Mr. Kenny) really hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to acquiesce in the very reasonable suggestion of his hon. Friend to postpone the Vote, and give Irish Members 1801 the opportunity of discussing what they considered a very important subject.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, if he really thought it was necessary for the Public Service that these Votes should be passed that night, he would have no hesitation in withdrawing his Motion; for, though he was not particularly concerned in promoting the object of the Prime Minister and his assistant in Ireland, he did not want to do anything unreasonable. But he objected to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that he had convinced the House that it was absolutely necessary to pass the Votes by the date he mentioned. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman he entirely failed to convince him. He did not attach the least importance to that statement of dates; indeed, it must be apparent to the Committee that it was misleading. His calculation was quite faulty as to the number of days the House of Lords required. Appropriation Bills had passed the House of Lords in much less time.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, what the right hon. Gentleman allowed for was that the Royal Assent should be given on some other day than Saturday; but he did not see why noble Lords should not come, with no more inconvenience to themselves than Members of the other House, who were required to meet at 12 on Saturday, and sit on into Sunday morning. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at least four days out in his reckoning, and he was perfectly certain that the Public Service would not suffer by postponing the Vote to Monday. But, as probably the Committee would continue to wrangle some time longer unless he withdrew his Motion, and as he did not see the use of keeping everybody out of their beds, he would, for the present, postpone his Motion, expressing a hope that when the next Vote was reached, the right hon. Gentleman would consider it reasonable to report Progress.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, the first question asked him was in reference 1802 to the Transvaal Debt. They had taken a round sum, but to arrive at it they had divided the debt roughly into three portions—the amount the Government took over with the annexation; the amount contracted during the occupation; and the remainder—namely, compensation paid on behalf of the Transvaal. They retained the first and third portions, striking out the middle, the debt contracted during our occupation. Then he was asked about the Native locations. Of course, if we withdrew the Resident, we must leave these internal affairs to the Boers. It had been said it was not safe to trust the Natives to the Boers; but the fact was, if you ceased to govern the interior affairs of the country, you must get rid of ail those arrangements which, under the Pretoria Convention, allowed the Resident to interfere with them, which interference, upon the showing of hon. Gentlemen opposite, had turned out simply a failure. But he did not think, in these matters, there was any reason to distrust the Transvaal Government. They had never robbed the Natives of their land, except when they had been engaged in war; there were several locations of Natives which had existed for a considerable number of years. Taking the Convention as a whole, he would point out that it was all very well to criticize it; but the Government had done the best they could, and anyone who read over the Correspondence and negotiations would see how very much more the Boer Leaders asked for than they obtained. They, no doubt, tried to make the best fight they could; but Her Majesty's Government remained firm on the most important points. The hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) seemed to fear the alteration of boundaries. Stellaland and Goschen had been brought within the Transvaal Border, and would form part of the Republic; and that was done on the representation of Mankoroane himself, who said these territories might be placed in the Transvaal, if he were, at the same time, to a certain extent, protected. These two Republics would be within the Transvaal, and the South African Republic would join with us in repressing disorders. The conditions referred to as attached to the consent of the Transvaal Government must be read in connection with Lord Derby's despatch of the 25th of January, 1884, giving his 1803 opinion as to the construction to be put upon them now. As to how encroachment was to be prevented now that we had settled the boundary, he must first of all demur to the statement that the Transvaal Government, as a Government, had ever, by acts of commission, violated the Convention. What they charged the Transvaal Government with was neglecting to see that the Convention should be fully observed. What Her Majesty's Government had done was to take measures that the police arrangements should be effective. They had appointed a Major Lowe to the head of the police force. He, in conjunction with Mr. MacKenzie, the new Resident, would organize the force which, according to Mr. Scanlen, the Cape was ready to assist in maintaining. He hoped that, before many weeks were over, the police force would be in full operation. Of course, what would occur would be this—that as soon as any inroad was made by an individual or a body of men into the territory, they would be laid hold of by the police, and this would be a means of checking inroads. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said something about the Delegates not showing their sincerity by signing a ratification. He (Mr. Ashley) understood there was no legal power of ratification, except that possessed by the Volksraad. It would have been impossible for the Delegates to ratify this Treaty. He was not there to defend the Boers; but he protested against his right hon. Friend (Mr. R. N. Fowler) asserting that the Boers were the greatest slaveholders in the world. That was not so. Lastly, as to Zulu-land. He would not venture to follow the long speech of the right hon. Gentleman upon the condition of Zululand; but he would briefly say that the condition of Zululand had been powerfully modified by the death of Cetewayo; and the Government had under consideration what further new arrangements should be made. It could not but be noticed that the Reserve Territory had undoubtedly been a very great success—that was to say, it had been absolutely free from any disturbance, and that its frontier had never been invaded. It must also be borne in mind that the creation of this Reserve Territory, so far from being annexation, was a great means whereby annexation 1804 might be avoided. Whether the Reserve should be extended, or some other arrangement made, was matter for further consideration. Her Majesty's Government would not place over the Zulus anyone who might be distasteful to them; and his hope was that the Government would be able, by some extension or modification of the present state of things, to bring back a considerable amount of peace and quiet.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he rose to explain that a large part of Stellaland and Goschen was left outside the new frontier line, as appeared from the statement of Sir Hercules Robinson at page 105 of Parliamentary Paper [C. 3841], and from the fact that Vryburgh, the capital of Stellaland, was also outside the proposed new boundary. It was to this territory that his question to the Government applied.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and of the Revising Barristers of the City of Dublin.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he would move to report Progress. It was now 1 o'clock on Sunday morning, and surely, at such an hour, the Government would not be so unreasonable as to expect the Committee to enter upon a new discussion. Already the Sitting had been very prolonged—13 hours—and, therefore, hon. Members ought not now to be asked to transact further Business. He need not remind the Committee that they had had several very late nights during the present week. Thursday night and last night the House did not adjourn until a late hour; and, as a matter of fact, the present would have been a very long Sitting, supposing they had commenced Business at 4 instead of at 12 o'clock. It was most unreasonable for the Government to expect them to sit longer.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Biggar)
1805THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was impossible for the Government to assent to the Motion; and he would suggest to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and the hon. Gentlemen sitting round him, that the Motion was hardly consistent with what they said a short time ago. He (the Marquess of Hartington) quite understood that hon. Members were willing to go on with this debate on the understanding that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) would be prepared to give answers to certain questions which might be addressed to him. He believed his hon. and learned Friend was willing to give the answers required of him. Certainly, there was no possibility of consenting to report Progress now.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to point out a second time, what it ought not to have been necessary to point out at all—namely, that the Government had not yet replied to the great bulk of speeches delivered when the Speaker was in the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) made a speech which was supposed to be a reply, but which, practically, was not a reply at all; because it left all the salient points of the weighty indictment brought by his hon. Friends unanswered. The Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) heard the speeches of the senior (Mr. Parnell) and junior (Mr. Deasy) Members for the City of Cork; he heard the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and those of the hon. Members for the Counties of Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and Westmeath (Mr. Sullivan); he was an attentive listener to the charges made, and the allegations brought by those hon. Gentlemen; and if the Government really meant to go on with that discussion, he could not suppose they wished hon. Members to make their speeches over again before they answered. He called upon the Government to proceed with their answer.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, the reason why he did not speak in the previous debate was, as he had already stated, that the Members of the Government were anxious, as far as possible, to economize time in order that there should be no excuse for not finishing the Votes that night. If this Vote were 1806 taken up now, he would answer any of the observations made by hon. Members opposite; he should be glad to give any explanation which occurred to him.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, he would remind the Committee that if the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) did what he said he would do, he would occupy at least one and a-half hours' time, and that would bring them to half-past 2 on Sunday morning.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he would appeal to the Government whether they were in earnest in asking the Committee to commence a fresh discussion at that hour on Sunday morning? He had not the slightest doubt that there was some means of getting out of the difficulty; in fact, the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) did not say there was no means of surmounting the difficulty. It was only a technical difficulty after all. They might expect that the first two Army Votes would be obtained by 1 o'clock on Monday night; and, therefore, he maintained it would be much more convenient to all parties concerned to postpone this Vote until Monday.
§ MR. HEALY(who rose amid cries of "Oh, oh!") said, it was apparent, judging from the condition of hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House who tried to howl him down, that they had not been in attendance since 12 o'clock on Saturday. If they had been, their spirits would scarcely be so gay and lively as they now were. He ventured to throw out the suggestion that it would be well if the Government engaged some Scotch Sabbatarian to maintain order during the Sittings of the House on Sunday mornings. What he particularly wanted to point out was the way Business had been conducted by Government during the past week. [Cries of "Question!"] If hon. Gentlemen who cried "Question" would give him half-a-minute, he should be able to prove, even to their intelligence, that he was talking to the Question. On Monday, they adjourned at 2.30 A.M.; on Thursday, at a quarter to 4; on Friday, or, in other words, Saturday morning, at 2 A.M.; and now here they were, on Sunday morning, sitting at 1 o'clock. He asked the Government whether they really thought hon. Members were in a condition to discuss Votes 1807 at the present hour? He fully appreciated the difficulties of the Government; and he believed that if the Government had treated the Irish Members more reasonably in many ways, they would not have been pressed so hardly by those Members now. He knew the Government were anxious to bring on the second reading of the Representation of the People Bill, and that that was the reason why they were so anxious to get these Votes. He was as anxious as the Government for the success of that Bill, and he would be happy to do what he could to facilitate its passing. It was not reasonable, however, to ask the Committee to go further that night. Hon. Members from Ireland had made several speeches concerning Captain Plunkett; surely they were not expected to repeat them before the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) replied. What they only wanted was an answer to what they had said at an earlier part of the evening.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy) had made a very fair proposal; and he noticed that when his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland spoke just now, and said he was quite ready to give any answers required of him, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) appeared to regard that also as a reasonable proposal. What he understood the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy) to say was that he and his hon. Friends did not want to make more speeches to-night on the Vote. ["Oh, oh!"] He certainly understood the hon. Gentleman to speak to that effect. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) would make a full statement in reply to the speeches which had been made. That would meet the case of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy), and would be a full and fair reply to the charges which had been made. Hon. Members must remember that it was not pleasant for the Members of the Government, or anyone who had hard work to perform in the daytime, to be kept in the House until this hour of the morning. He, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a servant of the House, was bound to repeat that, unless this Vote was taken that night, great confusion indeed would result in 1808 financial affairs. As it was, the House would sit on Saturday next. He trusted they would now hear the reply of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Walker), and then allow the Vote to be taken.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, unfortunately, misunderstood what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). What the hon. Gentleman wanted was that, first of all, they should have the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, and then discuss the Vote afterwards; and that was really what the Irish Members desired—they wanted a reply to their speeches from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and after that they would like to report Progress, and finish the discussion on the Vote on Monday next. He would really suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be to the convenience of all parties concerned that they should postpone until Monday not only the Vote, but the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It would be extremely unpleasant to report Progress immediately after the speech of the Solicitor General for Ireland, so that they would have to discuss the Vote after the hon. and learned Gentleman had done speaking; and then the hon. and learned Gentleman, or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, might require to reply to them; and then, again, they might require to reply to any further arguments they might advance.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped that the Government would bear in mind that they themselves were partly responsible for this waste of time. It was only the previous night that two distinguished Liberals took up six or seven hours which might have been saved. There was not one Conservative Member who brought forward any Motion on going into Supply.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that what he and his hon. Friends had endeavoured to convey was that they should desire to hear the Government reply before they spoke again. If the Government intended to accede to the request of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and had decided upon proceeding now, the Irish Members would listen, with all attention, to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor 1809 General for Ireland; and as he proceeded, and before he concluded, they would be in a position to decide how far they were to carry on the debate.
§ MR. BIGGARI ask leave to withdraw the Motion to report Progress, so that we may hear the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), and then we will see what will happen after that.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he would proceed to reply to the speeches of hon. Members from Ireland with reference to the charges which had been brought against Captain Plunkett. [Cries of "Order!"]
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENrose to Order. He wanted the Chairman's ruling as to whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would be in Order in replying to observations made in a previous debate?
THE CHAIRMANI have not heard what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland is about to say; but I understand this Vote comprises payments to magistrates, and I believe Captain Plunkett is a magistrate; therefore, the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite in Order in commenting upon the charges brought against that gentleman.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he understood that the charges which were made by hon. Members in respect to these particular magistrates were, that they had prohibited meetings and imposed the police tax. It was not Captain Plunkett who had really proclaimed the meetings. It was his duty to furnish to the Government information bearing upon every meeting that was likely to occur in the district of which he had charge, and for the peace of which he was responsible; but when he had discharged that duty, and given the information he possessed, the responsibility of issuing the Proclamations rested with the Government, as well as the duty of deciding whether a particular meeting should or should not be held, as likely to be prejudicial or not to the public peace and safety. He was only the person who furnished the information 1810 which led the Government to adopt a certain course, and they had acted on that information with regard to certain Nationalist meetings. These magistrates furnished information perfectly impartially as to Nationalist and Orange meetings; that information was furnished at the request of the Government, and, having received that information, it was the duty of the Government to exercise their powers under the Crimes Act, and preserve the public peace. At the Enniskillen meeting, a man was savagely assaulted by a party of something like 50 persons, and was killed by what were called agricultural instruments. A man was tried for that murder, and the hon. Member knew that if a man was indicted for murder it was open to the jury to find a verdict of manslaughter; but the life of that man was taken away by a number of people—50 or thereabouts. That being so, and several of these meetings having been held, the Government felt it necessary to proclaim any further meetings. Other crimes had taken place, and the Government, having received information that these other meetings would be dangerous to the public peace, proclaimed them. It might be said that in those cases the Proclamations were only issued shortly before the meetings were to be held, and it might be asked why that was. That showed the care of the Government.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENrose to Order, and pointed out that the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to a previous Vote.
THE CHAIRMANI have heard nothing from the hon. and learned Gentleman which is not in Order with regard to the Vote.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he was dealing with the argument that the Proclamations did not appear until a short time before the meetings were to beheld. The reason was that before a meeting was to be proclaimed, the case was carefully weighed, and with a desire that free speech should not be forbidden. The first desire in the mind of the Irish Government was that free speech should not be interfered with, except where the public peace and safety were endangered. Therefore, in every case the reports were carefully weighed before the Proclamation was issued. He perfectly 1811 agreed with the assertion that was made by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) that in such a case as that of the Rev. Mr. Ferriss, of Castlelyons, County Cork, public feeling was excited. Public feeling would, undoubtedly, run very high when, as in this particular case, the parish priest having been evicted from his house, was living in the chapel yard. Now, in such a case as that, knowing the relations between the parish priest and his flock, knowing that there was a landlord who had asserted his rights—rights which the law gave him—he asked hon. Members opposite if any one of them had attended a public meeting and had used, in relation to the case of Mr. Ferriss, such language as they had used in the House of Commons, did they not think that language would have tended, or might have tended, in the hearing of excited people, to produce the very result against which those who had to administer the Crimes Act were working—namely, danger to the public peace and public safety? It was the duty of the Executive, in such a case, to protect the men who had legal rights; and he could well imagine, if such a meeting were held, that the landlord who had exercised those legal rights might, perhaps, be endangered if such a meeting were held under such circumstances. Take the meeting at Kiblicoll. That was held for the purpose of opposing the police tax which had been imposed on the district. Why was that police tax imposed? It was imposed on account of the opposition shown to the man Hallissey. That man, beyond all doubt, was "Boycotted" before any allegation was made as to a shot being fired. It was said he was poor; it was said he was a man receiving out-door relief. Was that man so low as not to be a care to the Executive; was his life to be of no concern to the Executive; and was it right that that man should be "Boycotted?" The information before the Executive was that he was an honest man [" No, no!"] He was speaking of the information before the Executive, and the information was not contained in Reports made by Captain Plunkett, but by others. ["Name, name!"] Hon. Members could not expect, when he was called upon to speak on a matter of this kind, that he should remember all the names. The facts were these—that Hallissey was 1812 a blacksmith; he was "Boycotted," and he was receiving, in consequence of having been "Boycotted," out-door relief; he had become a pauper, and the extra police were "Boycotted" in the district. It was said that £500 a-year was a crushing burden to place upon the people of the district. For the purposes of argument he would admit that that was so. What was the observation that had been made in that House by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien)?
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he he thought the Chairman must have heard what the hon. and learned Gentleman had just now said. No one had preceded the hon. and learned Gentleman in the debate, so that he must now be referring to a previous debate. He asked whether the Solicitor General for Ireland, therefore, was in Order?
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Gentleman will not be in Order in replying to any discussion which has taken place in a previous debate. I understood he was referring to the conduct of Captain Plunkett as magistrate; but he would not be in Order in referring to a previous discussion.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he would admit that he was travelling beyond the limits allowed him. Re-turning, however, to the police tax, he would ask if it would be right for anybody to say, or to argue, that the police tax was not to be paid? He had admitted, for the purposes of argument, that the tax was a crushing burden. Now, an idea was got up in the district, not originating with Captain Plunkett at all, that there should be a subscription, amounting to £50 or £60, raised in the district amongst the people who were bearing this crushing burden of £500 a-year, with which Hallissey and his family should be removed from the district. [Mr. HEALY: It originated with Lanyon.]
THE CHAIRMANI must ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy) not to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)Be it so, with Captain Lanyon. The idea, however, was not carried out, and the crushing burden remained. Recently, when the Lord Lieutenant was down in the neighbourhood a memorial was presented 1813 to him—he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) could not say whether it was signed by 14, or by any larger number—a memorial was presented by some people representing the district, as, for instance, the parish priest, who certainly would naturally be taken as a representative of the people. That memorial having been presented, the Lord Lieutenant, who was always desirous that the police tax should be removed as soon as possible, said—"Let it be paid up to the 31st of December, and let it be seen that there is no outrage and harm done to Hallissey. From the 31st of December that police tax shall cease." He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) regretted exceedingly that, in the course of this debate, he had not heard a single word spoken by hon. Members opposite which might have the effect of enabling this tax ceasing to exist as from the 31st December. When hon. Members had, as he hoped they had, at heart, the interest of the district, when they had represented this police tax to be a grievous and crushing burden upon the poor people of the district, they ought to be most careful not to let fall any word which would interfere with the merciful action of the Executive, when the Lord Lieutenant told them, through their parish priest, that on the 31st December the tax should cease, for the small consideration that Hallissey should cease to be "Boycotted." Now, what were the facts respecting the imposition of the police tax? Captain Plunkett was one of the magistrates for Kerry, Cork, and Limerick. Throughout the whole of County Limerick no police tax had been imposed. In Cork there was this district of which he had been speaking, and in Kerry there were several districts in which police taxes existed; but Captain Plunkett had more than once himself represented to the Executive that the taxes should be removed from certain districts over which he had charge. As a matter of fact, 95 of these so-called crushing burdens had been withdrawn, in consequence of the intervention and representations made by Captain Plunkett himself—["In Kerry?"] No; over the whole district. Such was the value of the charge against Captain Plunkett with respect to the imposition of police taxes. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had said already what course Captain Plunkett took in regard 1814 to the prohibition of meetings. No knowledge had come to the Government of any of the violations of the right of public meeting complained of; and, so far as the Government were aware, there were none—the people, in all cases, quietly dispersed when the Proclamation was read. Captain Plunkett had been charged under three important counts; and he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) hoped hon. Gentlemen would admit that he, in what he had just stated to the Committee, had endeavoured to discharge the duty resting upon him.
§ MR. O'BRIENsaid, that, after listening to the extraordinary statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Solicitor General for Ireland), he was not very much surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have observed modest silence during the earlier portion of the debate. He had taken a note of a couple of the points the hon. and learned Gentleman had made. The first was a somewhat extraordinary one—namely, that it was not Captain Plunkett who suppressed meetings at all. Why, the whole marrow of the case made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was that Captain Plunkett's advice was the advice that was taken by Earl Spencer on his going within that particular district. The right hon. Gentleman plainly intimated that the information of the Executive upon these topics was derived, and their decisions were framed, upon the advice that was given by Captain Plunkett. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to take credit to Captain Plunkett for not having done any worse than Resident Magistrates had done in the case of Orange meetings in the North. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) might have remembered what was the consequence when an Orange demonstration was proclaimed in the city of Londonderry, of which he should know something. Were the police and military filed in; were contingents met as they were met at Castlelyons, and chased through the country; were they dispersed unceremoniously and told they would not be able to hold a public or a private meeting? No; the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) was allowed, in face of the Proclamation, and in the presence of the police in Derry, to make an incendiary 1815 speech to a large crowd, which subsequently burnt Lundy's effigy. On the other hand, while Mr. O'Connor was Laving an interview with the Resident Magistrate, the village crowd who had collected to hear him were set upon by the police, and men, and women, and children were knocked down and bayo-netted. Such was the comparison which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had invited between the policy which was pursued towards Orange meetings in the North and that which was pursued towards Nationalist meetings in the South. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland harked back upon the one murder, the one lurid event which illumined the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was doubtful, however, whether it was a murder at all—whether it was not simply manslaughter. He (Mr. O'Brien) would tell them plainly what the facts of the case were. The thing arose out of a drunken squabble. People were coming out of a public-house, and the man who killed Spence had no more notion of committing a murder than he had of flying. The Judge took the same view; a Crimes Act Jury took the same view; and even in his Charge to the Grand Jury, Judge Johnson expressly stated that this manslaughter of Spence was not of an agrarian character, and had no relation to the agitation that was going on in the country; but, of course, Dublin Castle preferred the opinion of Captain Plunkett to the opinion of Judge Johnson, who, on one or two occasions lately, had had occasion to differ with the procedure of the Crown Prosecutor. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had the courage to touch a point which the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with a little more prudence, avoided. He attempted to account for the fact that the proclamation of meetings was invariably delayed up to the time when it was impossible that full notice could be given to persons who were coming to take part in the meetings. What excuse did he make? He said the delay showed the care with which the Government investigated the case of each individual meeting. Now, what was the case of the Chief Secretary for Ireland? That not only did the magistrates know that the meetings would be objectionable, but 1816 that the leaders of the National movement ought to have known it, for it was notorious. So the Nationalists in Cork were supposed to have such knowledge of the desirability, or the undesirability, of holding meetings, that they could have decided right off whether or not a meeting could be held in a given place; and the Government, with all its sources of information, with Captain Plunkett on the spot, could not decide until the eleventh hour, or half-past the eleventh hour. The care showed was the care to help Captain Plunkett in attempting to exasperate the people into some conduct that would give him the opportunity of being once more in evidence to justify his continuance in the district. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland referred, in a cursory way indeed, to another class of facts brought forward; but he once more prudently ignored altogether the violence and insolence with which the magistrates and police enforced their proclamation, and he almost hinted it was in kindness to the people that Mr. O'Connor was prevented from addressing the people. Was it kindness that the contingent from Connaught, after marching for 14 miles from a district whore they could not have heard of the proclamation of the meeting, were set upon without the slightest notice, without any formalities of the Crimes Act being complied with, no proclamation read, no summons to disperse, no time given to disperse, but instantly set upon by the police, and chased for miles through the country? Not only that, but the mendacity with which Captain Plunkett and his subordinates had attempted to cloak these facts had not, in the slightest degree, been accounted for. Nobody had given an explanation of the fact that the Chief Secretary for Ireland told him (Mr. O'Brien) that there was no crowd there at all; that they were never charged; that the whole thing, from beginning to end, was a delusion. He had quoted that night the evidence of man after man who was assaulted by the police, and who saw persons knocked down, kicked, and brutally maltreated. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had referred to the case of Father Ferriss, who had combined with others for a reduction of rents. These tenants claimed an abatement of 20 per cent on their rents; and Father Ferriss, having been 1817 most prominent in the combination of tenants to enforce this, was pitched upon for attack by the landlord, and driven from his home. What was the fact? Two other tenants went into the Land Court and got their rents reduced much below the rate for which Father Ferriss and others had combined. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland plunged into the case of a man whom he (Mr. O'Brien) believed was called Hallissey. He thought that name was pretty well impressed on the minds of the officials in Ireland; at any rate, he hoped after that night there would be no mistake about that name, and the facts of a case which had been grossly misrepresented until this discussion took place. The story of his being fired at was now given up entirely, and the only pretext for the fine of £500 a-year on this poor mountain parish was that he was "Boycotted." What was that "Boycotting?" One threatening letter, according to Captain Plunkett, was sent to him. Was not a man who was capable of inventing the story of his being fired at also capable of writing a threatening letter to himself? One fact had been very successfully put out of sight—that the "Boycotting," the threatening notice, and the alleged attempt to shoot him occurred about the same time, and very close together. This man had been utterly broken down in business, and was a drunken profligate; and he was thoroughly obnoxious to the people of the neighbourhood. What more likely than that a fellow of that kind, taking advantage of the time when the informer and the getter-up of outrages were having a good time under the Crimes Act, what more likely than that this man should write a threatening letter to himself, and back that up by a story that he had been fired at? Not only was there a possibility of such things, but a case of the kind actually occurred. A man named Ellis, or Elliot, in Armagh, shot his own horse, and told the police he had been fired at; he lodged a claim for £500 for malicious injury. He had an Emergency man for a confederate, and, some facts being discovered, he was brought to trial, and sentenced to six months' hard labour, as well as his confederate. And so should Hallissey have been treated, instead of being made the object of bounty, and a 1818 testimonial from the people he had tried to injure. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland said a mere sum of £50 was required to relieve these people from the crushing burden of the police tax. No doubt most thieves would be glad to compound with rich people for a few pounds, and rich people might agree to it, rather than be knocked down and garrotted. So it might have been said to John Hampden, when he resisted the imposition of ship money in England, that it was but a trifling sum; for his assessment was something like £1 16s., and he was not a man to consider that an excessive burden. But the ship money of those days was a fair tax compared to this infamous imposition, made arbitrarily and capriciously, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland admitted, at the beck and will of a police officer in Cork, and made on the statement of a perjurer, for a perjurer he had proved. He need detain the Committee no longer. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland wound up his speech with something like a threat; he hinted that if hon. Members on those Benches continued to expose Captain Plunkett's dealings with Mr. Hallissey, then the Lord Lieutenant would have his vengeance by retaining the police in that parish of Monanimy. He [Mr. O'Brien) believed, if it was a safe same to play, Lord Spencer would play it; their confidence was not in his fair play, but his fears. Why did he remove that tax in Monanimy? He removed it in obedience to a memorial from 14 people. He was memorialized before by a large number of people, and the signatures included the name of Lord Listowel; of Mr. Eaton, a Resident Magistrate, who declared the police unnecessary. Mr. Hickey and Mr. Starkey, other magistrates, in giving the decrees for the tax, admitted it was unnecessary, and an unjust one; and Lord Spencer was little moved by this memorial. On the contrary, Mr. Foote, another magistrate, objected, and demurred to signing the memorial, and he was exempt from the levy. No; Lord Spencer gave heed to the memorial got up at his own instigation; and the decision, which was supposed to be the outcome of this memorial, was a sham to cover Lord Spencer's retreat from an impossible position. The 1819 people had risen up against the tax; they had shown that the collection of the tax was not so easy a matter as the collection of a landlord's rent. They had given to the rest of the country an example of how this tax was to be got rid of, and that example was beginning to tell all over the country; and Lord Spencer thought it wise to put an end to this evil example by pretending to relent to a memorial of 14 persons out of the parish, three of whom wrote three days after to repudiate the whole thing, and say that they signed under false pretences. He removed the tax, because he thought it was convenient to Dublin Castle. Well, he would not be likely to restore it, for that would be very inconvenient to Dublin Castle.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, whatever the English people might think of getting important Votes at 2 o'clock on Sunday morning, he thought the Irish people would not quarrel with their Members, but would think they were engaged in a holy task in exposing the grievances of their country. He had listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) in the hope of extracting something like an answer to the case; but whether it was owing to the interruption of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Patrick O'Brien), or some other cause, they had only received a watered-down version of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was natural it should be so; for both spoke from the same brief, and knew nothing of the facts, except what Captain Plunkett chose to tell them. There might be 20 speeches from the Government, but none of them shed any new light; they were only Captain Plunkett over again, dished up with various changes of phrase in which right hon. Gentlemen furbished up their thoughts. But there was one extraordinary omission from both speeches—not a word of the police tax in the City of Cork. What was the case for it there? £1,000 a-year was imposed on that city, simply and solely at the behest of Captain Plunkett; that was the main charge of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland sat down without saying a single word upon that with regard to the tax. The hon. and learned Gentleman the 1820 Solicitor General for Ireland said they should have been delighted to have got Hallissey out of the country, and have escaped from the burden of £500 a-year by paying £50; but he must ask the Government why they did not put Hallissey on Mr. Tuke's fund? How was it they thought £5 enough to emigrate an unfortunate Irish farmer, while not less than £50 was required to furnish the travelling-bag and dressing-case of Hallissey—£50 for an impecunious blacksmith in receipt of out-door relief before he was "Boycotted," and £5 for an honest Connemara farmer ground to powder by his landlord? In fact, the emigrant ship, in their case, was done as cheaply as the coffins were done in 1848. He supposed that an emigrant was shipped across the Atlantic for £5, and the coffins was provided for the poor wretches in Ireland at 5s. a-piece. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, having abandoned the shooting at Hallissey, took refuge in "Boycotting." How was he "Boycotted?" The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland told them he was "Boycotted;" and now it was made a condition of the non-imposition of the police tax that he should not be further "Boycotted." Would the right hon. Gentleman venture to give the Committee a definition of "Boycotting?" If he (Mr. Healy) met Hallissey, was he supposed to take off his hat to him? If he wanted a horse shod, and there were two blacksmiths in the district, must he be obliged to choose Hallissey? The Government had got themselves into a complete mess, out of which they would find it hard to extricate themselves. They objected to any system by which the people showed their repugnance to a man who they thought had acted improperly, and that system they called "Boycotting." What was the particular species of action on the part of the people against which complaint was made? They were told that, in order to get rid of this police tax, every farmer in the district must send his horses to be shod by Hallissey. Why, they were told that the Lord Lieutenant, in response to a memorial of 14 persons, headed by the parish priest, promised to relieve the people of the tax. It was very strange that the remission of the tax should have signalized the hunting expedition 1821 of Lord Spencer in this neighbourhood. He presumed that if Lord Spencer had not gone down to hunt, the tax would still have been on; it was very strange that the reason the tax was taken off was that Lord Spencer and others of his kidney might hunt foxes in this district. Captain Plunkett had sworn to keep the tax in existence, and there was no doubt that if he had had his way that burden would still have been cast upon the people. That was the worst of this system of police Pashas. Fortunately for the people, Lord Spencer went down, and in the interest of fox-hunting took the tax off; in point of fact, the taking off of the tax was a slap in the face for Captain Plunkett; it was practically a declaration that the tax had been improperly imposed, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had not even said a word in favour of the imposition of the tax. Let him (Mr. Healy) point out what the imposition of this tax meant to the blacksmith Hallissey. He had the advantage of police protection. Other persons of Hallissey's class thought it a small gold mine to be guarded by the police; half the bankrupt landlords of the country were delighted to have police protection. It was not like the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to whom, of course, to be protected by the police was a nuisance; but Mrs. Hallissey received £2 a-week for lodging the police, and she supplied them with milk and other small necessaries; so that they not only got a subsidy from the Government, but made a profit by lodging the police who were guarding them. Hallissey had now achieved a sufficiently world-wide fame to induce Mr. Schnadhorst to put him up as a fit and proper person to represent some English borough in Parliament. It was no small matter for a man like Hallissey to have achieved European fame; he now was spoken of in the newspapers side by side with General Gordon and Count Bismarck; indeed, there were many men who would pay the price Hallissey paid for his fame. With regard to the statement that Captain Plunkett was very anxious for the removal of the tax, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that Captain Plunkett had taken off the police tax in Kerry-had nothing whatever to do with the 1822 subject. He had put his foot down in Monanimy, and sworn that, so long as he was Pasha, the unfortunate fellaheen of Monanimy should pay the police tax. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) make capital out of the remission of the tax in Kerry; but it was an extraordinary thing that Captain Plunkett withdrew the police from Castleisland the moment the people of Monanimy make a fight. Captain Plunkett put on his thinking-cap for a moment; he thought that resistance might spread, and that the people of Castleisland had shown themselves a people who were not to be trifled with. When Captain Plunkett found that the people of Monanimy resisted the police tax, he took it off the thorny district of Castleisland, he well knowing that they were not people to be lightly meddled with. A statement was made in the course of the day that the Prevention of Crime Act would soon come to a termination. He (Mr. Healy) viewed the termination of that Act with equanimity. Lot the Government renew it if they dared, and let them re-impose these taxes if they could; let the Government do their best; but let the Government understand this—that they in Ireland defied the Government to govern the country against the will of the people. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, while he was in power, might gain a little favour with his Party, and he might, while in Office, say—"I keep the country quiet; I am the man who, in face of danger and difficulty, remained steadfast to my post, and, with an honest heart and truthful spirit, I draw my salary quarterly." But whatever credit the right hon. Gentleman might take for his two years of the Government of Ireland, he (Mr. Healy) would not like to say when the men who succeeded the right hon. Gentleman would be able to take the same credit. In the ordinary course of time, if the Liberals remained in Office, the right hon. Gentleman would be called up higher; but he was now laying up a store of ill-feeling that would not die away. The little children of Monanimy, who were now going to school, were hearing from their fathers what was taking place. The Government might pass their remedial measures and their Land Acts; but the children of Ireland knew that their fathers 1823 had been made to pay, by a Liberal Government, a tax of £500 a-year, on account of a miserable, dissolute profligate, who was taken in by Captain Plunkett. The plague spot of Hallissey would remain for generations, and there was no district in Ireland in which there was not a similar fester which would keep the minds of the people open to hate and despise their rulers. Let them govern the country if they could, impose their police taxes, renew their Crimes Acts. The Government had done their worst. "What was it that they had done for the Irish people that they could have avoided doing; what was it that they had done to them? They had imprisoned them, they had hanged them, they had taxed them. What further infamy remained to be imposed? Would no ray of sense penetrate the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland? He was not even supported by the Tories. Was it nothing to the right hon. Gentleman that he was dealing with men who it could not be denied legitimately represented the Irish people, the people who hated the way they were governed, with an intensity and ferocity that would find vent in other ways, had they the means? Was it nothing to the right hon. Gentleman that, out of 103 Irish Members, he had not a single one, save his own Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), to support his policy? What were they governing the country for? Was it in the interest of the Irish people, or was it in the interest of the English people? What did England make out of it? Ireland was actually being turned into a milch cow for persons like Captain Plunkett to draw their salaries out of it. There would be some satisfaction if the money which had been, or was being, stolen, was turned to good account. Who was this man Plunkett? He was a man who was invariably to be found either puffing a cigar at the South Mall at Cork or playing billiards. What did the English Government gain by their government of Ireland; where was the gain to-night to the British Government by the imposition of this police tax? They had incurred the hatred of the Irish people; they had incurred the hatred of their Representatives; and, even from a Party point of view, how much better would it be for the Liberal Party at the present moment to go 1824 along with the majority, instead of the minority of the Irish Members? He and his hon. Friends had their duty to perform. Duty was a sacred talisman and watchword of the English; every possible kind of throat-cutting, extravagance, and confiscation had been justified by the Englishman from time immemorial under the sacred name of duty. Duty! What crimes are committed in thy name! The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would get up to-night and tell the House that it was absolutely necessary that in the case of Hallissey police protection should have been provided, and that the burden of £500 a-year should have been imposed upon the unfortunate people of the district. With regard to Mr. Hallissey, he was at least as respectable as many persons of that description whom the Government employed; and he would invite the Government to do something for Mr. Hallissey, so as to rid the people of him for a time. He might be made a Resident Magistrate, and then he would be able, when necessary, to invent threatening letters. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had referred to the case of the clergyman, Father Ferriss, and said he had had three years' rent, and, therefore, was not entitled to the sympathy of any honest man. The right hon. Gentleman's statement was rather peculiar with regard to rent. How did he know whether the rent was just or not? The Government were apparently satisfied that the rent was just, and argument was useless with the Government. There were, however, Ambassadors in this country who recognized the fact that the chief weakness of the Empire lay in the Island which locked up so many of its troops.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the question of these Resident Magistrates was one which, he thought, was entitled to attention, and one upon which he felt himself called upon to offer some observations. These gentlemen had no mercy for the people; and he thought, if the Government would take the trouble to inquire into the facts of cases beforehand, the House would be spared trouble afterwards. But the Irish Members were determined that so long as their people, be they high or low, rich or poor, were oppressed and ground down, so long they would endeavour in this House to 1825 get some satisfaction for them. That was their fixed and unalterable determination, and the Government would find that as the Parnellite Party was multiplied and reinforced oppression in Ireland would become more difficult. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland might be able to face 20 or 30 of them; but let him wait till they were 70 or 100 strong. What was the case with regard to the Black-lion meeting? The case was this. It would have been extremely inconvenient to have sent soldiers and police to the place to prevent a breach of the peace. There never was the slightest chance of a breach of the peace, because there was no opposition Party in the district. It was a Catholic district, and the people were all of one mind. Blacklion was 10 miles by rail from Enniskillen, a garrison town in which there were Infantry and Dragoons, so that, without the slightest inconvenience, a full supply of soldiers, horse and foot, and also of police, could have been drafted down by railway on the morning of the meeting, and could have returned safely the same evening. He mentioned these facts as an illustration of the absurdly false information supplied by the Resident Magistrates, and of the means by which the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland suppressed the right of freedom of speech in Ireland. One of the Resident Magistrates who appeared in Blacklion on that occasion, a Mr. Boulby, appeared a few days ago at a meeting where anti-Irish songs were sung, and that was the sort of gentleman on whose representations, he supposed, the Government suppressed the Blacklion meeting. He (Mr. Biggar) was refused an opportunity of addressing his constituents at that place, and some of his supporters insisted upon taking a private room in which he could address them. He did not wish to use strong language towards the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but he did not think he ever used a word that was sufficiently strong to mark his sense of the right hon. Gentleman's conduct in regard to the Blacklion meeting. Then, again, there was the Coote Hill meeting in County Cavan. Coote Hill was also a Catholic district, and it was a place where a murder took place. He did not believe the Government took any efforts to find out the 1826 perpetrators of the murder on that occasion of the unfortunate boy M'Guire. The Government would not give compensation to his relatives for his death, as they would have done unquestionably had he belonged to the favoured Party. What was the reason that the Coote Hill meeting was proclaimed? Because, he (Mr. Biggar) presumed, as there were to be two Orange meetings at Dromore, it would have been impossible for the Orangemen to make a decent show at both meetings, and the Lord Lieutenant proclaimed the Coote Hill meeting, so that the Orangemen could be drafted to Dromore on purpose to make a large show at one place. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland denied that there had been any interference with freedom of speech in Ireland. Why, he would not allow him (Mr. Biggar) on two different occasions to address the electors of the county which he had the honour to represent, electors whose confidence he had every reason to believe he possessed. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the case of Hallissey, and he made a most curious admission. He told the Committee that this man was "Boycotted," and that the Government had given him protection. The right hon. Gentleman called Hallissey an honest man; Hallissey, who was a convicted perjurer, and who was a thorough scoundrel, was, according to the dictum of the right hon. Gentleman, an honest man, simply because he told a flood of falsehoods to the right hon. Gentleman, and had given opportunities to the right hon. Gentleman to vilify the Irish people. Hallissey was a broken-down character; he was getting relief from the Poor Law Guardians before any "Boycotting" took place. He put himself in communication with the police; he became an informer, and did his best to get up fictitious charges. Such was the gentleman who was the confidential friend of the right hon. Gentleman. What he had said was an illustration of the way in which informers were originated in Ireland, and of the way in which the people were governed. With regard to the imposition of the police tax, his hon. Friends had impressed upon the attention of the Irish people what he thought was a very meritorious thing—namely, the holding out against the payment of this blood tax. The police tax was one of the 1827 many dishonest taxes the people were called upon to pay. The people who imposed it knew that it was not an honest tax, and no argument could possibly be advanced for its imposition. The people were bound, in their own interest and in the interest of right, to protest against the continuance of the tax by the only forcible way in their power—namely, by not paying it. Reference had been made to the question whether or not people did pay a dishonest levy, and he was disposed to think that there were illustrations in this country of classes of people refusing to pay dishonest levies. Quakers allowed their goods to be distrained upon for what they regarded as dishonest levies, and there was also the case of the tithe-payers, who refused to pay further extra taxation in respect of hops. It was not looked upon as unreasonable in this country to protest against taxes of an unfair and dishonest nature. From the same point of view, he thought the Irish people were perfectly justified in re fusing to pay this blood money; and he hoped they would, in every district, combine against its imposition. It suited Earl Spencer exceedingly well, because he belonged to the landlord class, and he wanted entirely to play into the hands of the landlords, whether the landlords were right or wrong. Some people might say that Lord Spencer belonged to a political Party; but his (Mr. Biggar's) experience went to make him believe that, in principle, there was no difference between Liberals and Con servatives, except that one sat on one side of the House and one on the other. Earl Spencer hated the Irish people——
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan that there is no reference in this Vote to any of the questions which he is now discussing; he certainly will not be in Order in discussing, under this Vote, the conduct of the Viceroy.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, it was avowed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that all these objectionable things were done upon the advice of this Captain Plunkett and his confrères; and his (Mr. Biggar's) object was to show that Earl Spencer and these disreputable magistrates combined together to victimize the unfortunate people of Ireland, to lay heavy taxes on them, and in other ways to misgovern the country. He wished to 1828 show that Earl Spencer and the Chief Secretary for Ireland were insidiously playing into the hands of outrages and disreputable characters.
THE CHAIRMANI must again point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is travelling beyond the limits of the Vote. In the first place, let me say that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has not spoken on this Vote at all; therefore the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan cannot be in Order in replying to any remarks the Chief Secretary for Ireland has made in a previous debate. The references the hon. Gentleman has lately made have no connection whatever with the Vote before the Committee.
§ MR. BIGGARassumed he should have an opportunity of hearing the Chief Secretary for Ireland reply to his statement, and that he would have an opportunity of replying to the right hon. Gentleman. In the meantime, he begged to move that the Committee be counted.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ MR. KENNYsaid, he apprehended that the Vote now before the Committee opened up considerably weightier questions than the mere conduct of Captain Plunkett. Captain Plunkett was merely one of a quartette of similar gentlemen who, as far as they possibly could, had been endeavouring to thwart the cause of popular loyalty in Ireland. Reference had been made, at considerable length, to the conduct of Captain Plunkett with regard to Hallissey the blacksmith. He (Mr. Kenny) had been astonished that the Government failed to procure for Hallissey employment which it had invariably procured for all its other instruments in Ireland; the different persons who came forward in all the capacities of informers were invariably handsomely rewarded by Her Majesty's Government. Nothing would seem simpler to him than that Her Majesty's Government should establish a position in Dublin Castle, such as a shoer of horses, which would suit Hallissey admirably. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), in attempting to defend the conduct of Captain Plunkett, no doubt, spoke from material which was supplied in common to himself and 1829 other officials in Dublin Castle. So far as he (Mr. Kenny) could, gather from the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to which he had listened throughout with considerable attention, he could only come to the conclusion that he made the conduct and character of Captain Plunkett appear considerably worse than some of the Irish Members would appear to consider it was. He would like to give the hon. and learned Gentleman a little advice, or, in other words, refer him to a little incident which occurred during the famous Mid Lothian campaign. The right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister, in one of his speeches, said he had received that morning, amongst other telegrams, a telegram which he would read to the meeting. The telegram was from the Rev. William Sharman, of Plymouth. The Prime Minister said he did not know Mr. Sharman, and therefore the meeting must take it as he got it; but, in his opinion, the nature of the telegram was such that it must be substantially true. The telegram was as follows:—
Sir Hardinge Giffard stated last night in my hearing that you were in favour of giving hack Gibraltar, and that you entered into negotiations for its surrender.
THE CHAIRMANThe remarks of the hon. Member have no reference to the Vote before the Committee. He must confine himself to the Vote.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, he was proceeding to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland that the character of his observations in defence of Captain Plunkett were of so weak a nature that, instead of securing or attaining the ends he (Mr. Kenny) presumed the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view, in vindicating Captain Plunkett, it really made it appear considerably worse, and he was about to express the opinion of the Prime Minister as to Solicitor Generals. The reply which the Prime Minister returned to Mr. Sharman was—" Errors, pardonable in private persons, are scandalous in Solicitor Generals." The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was a new Member of the House, and this advice from his Chief might be an advantage to him. And now he (Mr. Kenny) had to direct himself to certain occurrences in Ireland in which he was personally concerned, and brought into contact 1830 with some of the magistracy that served under the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in Ireland. He referred to the suppression of meetings in County Clare, one in the town of Milltown, near which he lived, and another in Ennis, which he represented in Parliament. At the first of these places a meeting was announced to be held, at which he and the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) would deliver addresses. There had not been a meeting in the town for a year; but, six months previous to the meeting held there, in 1882, a murder was committed in the district. The meeting in 1882 was addressed by the then hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy); and between 1882 and the date of the meeting he (Mr. Kenny) was announced to address, in conjunction with his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow, there had been no outrage of a serious character in the district. There had only been two or three in the parish during the whole time, and these consisted of alleged threatening letter-writing, and it was generally understood in the place itself that those who received the threatening letters wrote them. In the next parish there had been an outrage; the hay-rick of a clergyman had been set on fire; but this clergyman was held in general respect in the neighbourhood, and suspicion pointed to the fact that the outrage was committed by a person living 40 or 50 miles away. The police arrested a certain person staying in the locality, a respectable man of good position; but before the magistrate the charge could not be substantiated, and the man was dismissed. No suspicion attached to any resident as being concerned in the matter. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had not at any time given any reason whatever why this meeting was suppressed. There was no apprehension of disturbance, for the people were unanimous; there was no opposition; but representations were made by the local wire-pullers to the local magistrates, of course these were connived at by the magistrate at Ennis, the senior magistrate for County Clare; and, on the representations made to Dublin Castle, this meeting was suppressed. Mrs. Maroney was the principal landowner of the district, and was notorious for harsh treatment of her tenants. She could bring her influence to bear upon 1831 four or five magistrates to do anything I she wished. It so happened that the special magistrate at Milltown, who had satisfied himself of the peaceful character of the district, had got the soldiers removed, a serious thing for Mrs. Maroney, who was realizing a profitable rent from their presence. By her influence the meeting was proclaimed, though the Resident Magistrate had advised against this being done. The Hon. De Vere Perry was the magistrate at the time; but the meeting was prohibited, and in two months the Hon. De Vere Perry was dismissed. Now, the meeting was largely attended, there were some 10,000 people; but how were the people informed that the meeting was prohibited? He had left Milltown to go to Ennis to meet his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who was going to address the meeting, instead of the hon. Member for Mallow; and he knew nothing about the proclamation until he was informed, by telegraph at Ennis, that after dark the policemen were stealing round like thieves to post up the notices of prohibition. So the authorities connived at the bringing of the people into the district where armed policemen only needed the slightest word to have at them. Passing from that, he would refer to the meeting at which he was announced to address his constituents at Ennis, where it was also announced the hon. Members for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) and Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) would speak. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had already stated that the reason for the proclamation of the Ennis meeting was the prevalance of crime in the district. So far as the town was concerned, the right hon. Gentleman did not deny that it was peaceable. There had been a murder in the streets two months before, having nothing to do with agrarianism, and which Dublin Castle must have satisfied itself was the crime of a drunken man, who was in the service of a landlord, and who was sentenced to penal servitude, when another man would have been hanged. Another bailiff attempted to commit suicide. But the ingenuity of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not to be baffled—he included not only Ennis, but the country 10 miles round, and on this founded a claim to prevent him addressing his constituents. The day before the meeting he found published in The 1832 Freeman's Journal another reason, to which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not alluded—the un-Parliamentary nature of the placard convening the meeting. But he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was there objectionable in it? It was a simple announcement of the meeting, and wound up with "God save Ireland," and presented no reason for preventing a Member from addressing his constituents. The Chief Secretary for Ire land had distinguished himself more than once in preventing Members ad dressing their constituents. He had so prevented the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), and for Cavan; but those three hon. Members represented counties; and if shut out from one place might speak in another, while the Representative of a small borough like Ennis, being silenced at a meeting, could find no other platform from which to address his constituents. He looked forward to an explanation of this incident with considerable interest; and he wished to say, furthermore, that whatever might be the response of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he (Mr. Kenny) would take another opportunity of addressing his constituents, and he proposed, in con junction with the same hon. Gentlemen who were previously announced, to seek some opportunity, and the right hon. Gentleman would have another opportunity of putting his Coercion Act into force. Who sent a Petition for preventing the meeting? Why was it said—"If it were not for your meetings, we should have no trouble in getting our rents?" It was an unfortunate thing that the Chief Secretary for Ireland gauged the condition of the country by remarking how the rents were paid. If they were paid well, then the state of the country was satisfactory; if badly, then the country was in a very bad state——
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Member for Ennis that his remarks on the Chief Secretary's policy have no reference whatever to the Vote. They would apply very well to a discussion which took place four or five hours ago; but they have no reference to the Vote at all now.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, he would pass from the subject with this remark—he was, no doubt, out of Order in referring 1833 to the Chief Secretary for Ireland when he should have mentioned special magistrates. They advised the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and it was because of the fact that they were his advisers, deluding him into error, that he had referred to the right hon. Gentleman. He was perfectly certain that if the right hon. Gentleman understood the real state of the facts, and had not to rely on second-hand information from biassed sources, he would not have acted as he had. A favourite device of these magistrates was, wherever they could, to get extra police drafted into a district. The police magistrates themselves, on those occasions, acted, to a great extent, on the advice of the sergeants of police and others. Into districts perfectly peaceful extra police had been drafted, all on the recommendation of a local police-man, who had certain personal objects to gain by it. In one instance a police but was erected in a very peaceful part of Clare, near the town of Castlemaine, to protect a man named Gardner, who had made himself obnoxious in the district. After the but had been there two months it was found to be altogether unnecessary; but at the end of six months, as the result of a new arrangement between Gardner and the Constabulary, the but was re-erected. Now, Gardner was a man having no reason to apprehend personal danger. He alleged that a calf belonging to him had been killed maliciously, though it was believed by the people of the district that the animal died, it having no marks of violence. Gardner tried to secure compensation; and, on his mere allegation, five men were sent to guard Gardner, prejudging the case with a vengeance. The gain to this man was some £20 or £30; he received a ground rent of something like £10 a-year, and, in addition, he supplied the police by contract with certain necessaries. Now, if this man required protection at all, it was only in the night time, and one or two policemen would have been sufficient to guard him; and yet, on the recommendation of a local policeman, the police magistrate of the district had seen his way to order the erection of a police but in that district, at the cost of some hundreds of pounds. Of course, it was said, the expense did not fall upon any particular district; but his experience was that it fell upon the very smallest 1834 districts. There was another feature in the conduct of local magistrates, and it was the manner in which the blood tax had been levied. The tax had been levied in the most reckless fashion; but on account of the lateness of the hour (3–30) he would not enter at any length upon this branch of the question. He would, however, point out one instance in which, in a small district, the blood tax had been placed upon every person but the one upon whom it should have been placed, the only exception made, in he cases he had in mind, was that of Mr. Mahoney. This woman had been excluded from the penalty, although others, who, of course, could be in no way concerned in outrages, were subjected to the imposition. His own father, for instance, paid in blood tax £8 10s. a-year; and another man he knew, who had no possible connection with outrage, was required to pay £7 10s. He considered that was a most scandalous and infamous case; and the imposition of such taxes, instead of putting down crime, was only calculated to promote it. There was another point to which he wished to refer, and that was the question of the levying of the police tax. He thought that wherever extra police were drafted into any district, and where it could be shown—indeed, he did not think it could be shown in any district—that extra police were required, the people should, in all instances, refuse to be taxed in repect of the police quartered upon them. It was lamentable to see the enormous way in which taxation had been increased in Ireland within the last two or three years. Last year, in the county of Gal-way, the increase of taxation on account of the extra police drafted there at the instigation of the County Court magistrates was something like £6,000. In one county, over which Plunkett Pasha ruled, taxation for extra police had been increased by £10,000, and the same thing prevailed all over the country. The police force had been increased by something like 10,000 or 15,000 men, without the slightest show of necessity. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had left his place in the House; but before the discussion closed, he (Mr. Kenny) would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what were the reasons for his extraordinary, arbitrary, and utterly unjusti- 1835 fiable conduct towards the Irish Representatives when they went down amongst their constituents. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman's explanation would not be of the unsatisfactory character it had been up to now, and that it would be of such a nature that it would bear the examination of reasonable men.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he did not intend to occupy the attention of the Committee for more than one or two moments; he rose merely for the purpose—["Oh, oh!"] He had not, up to then, troubled the Committee, and he thought that, when he rose to submit a practical question to the Government, as he did now, it was rather too bad that he should be met with jeers from hon. Members opposite. That, however, was his experience; Irish Members, who did not speak often, were jeered at when they rose; but when they were in the habit of speaking, and rose to occupy the attention of the House or Committee, they were respected. He rose merely for the purpose of asking a question of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker). He found now that they were asked to pass a Vote of £2,103 for the salaries and allowances of the County Court magistrates in Ireland, and in the Estimate there appeared a note to the effect that "the above salaries are in excess of the rate authorized by the Act, 37 and 38 Vic. c. 23." By the 2nd section of that Act, which was passed in April, 1874, it was provided that magistrates in Ireland should be paid by way of salary, which salaries were specified. He now had to ask whether the salaries of magistrates, having been fixed by Act of Parliament, it was competent for a Committee of the House of Commons to increase those salaries until the Act of Parliament had been repealed? This was purely a legal question, and he desired information on the point from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that the question the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Leamy) had put was reasonable enough. The salaries of certain magistrates were fixed by Act of Parliament, he believed at £675 a-year. Pour additional magistrates were appointed in October last upon a different system, and upon a different scale of payment; their salaries 1836 were fixed at £1,000 a-year, and it was because their salaries were above the sum fixed by Act of Parliament that the Government had come to the Committee with this Vote.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, it must be remembered, however, that there was an Act of Parliament which stated that every magistrate should be paid a certain salary; and he wanted to know on what authority magistrates had been appointed and increased salaries had been given them? There was not a Member present who would say for one moment that the Committee had a right to pass anything by way of increase of salary of any County Court magistrate in Ireland, when the salary was fixed and appointed by Statute. He desired something more in the nature of a legal explanation than the statement they had received from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland. Of course, he knew that the hon. and learned Gentleman could not, for a moment, suppose that he (Mr. Leamy) meant anything disrespectful to him in the matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman was only a new Member of the House, and possibly was not fully conversant with the particulars of the Vote; but there was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) present, and surely the Committee had a right to receive the best information it could from the highest Legal Authorities in the House upon the question which he now put. Here was a statement made on the Estimates, that the sum they were asked to pay was a sum in excess of the sum they were authorized to pay by Act of Parliament. In the face of an Act of Parliament, authorizing a certain rate of payment, what right had the Committee to pay a sum in excess of that rate? He maintained that the Committee had no such right, and that they would be acting illegally if they passed the proposed excess. The answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland did not explain the matter at all. Why did the Government consider it necessary to make a statement on the Vote that the salary they were now defending was in excess of the rate authorized by Act of Parliament? If they had a perfect right to demand the increase, there was no necessity to make that statement at all. He did not know whether it would be discourteous to 1837 appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, seeing that he had not been upon the Treasury Bench throughout the whole of the discussion, to give the Committee some explanation of the matter; but he was persuaded this was a question which demanded an answer from a very high legal authority. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, were to come down to-night, and, instead of asking for a sum of £2,000, asked for £20,000, with which to increase the salaries of these County Court magistrates, was he (Mr. Leamy) to be told that it would depend upon the will of the Committee whether the salaries were increased or not?
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that matter was really one of well-settled authority. The salaries of magistrates were defined by Act of Parliament. It was true that the Committee could not, by its own act, overrule that Act of Parliament; but the authority of the Committee was only the first stage in the preparation of another Act of Parliament; and if the Vote of the Committee supported the payment of a salary different to that provided by a former Act, the Vote was subsequently embodied in another Act—the Appropriation Act. The Appropriation Act was perfectly valid, and it settled the new salary, although that new salary might differ from one previously decided upon. The matter had been very carefully considered, and the step now taken was found to be quite legitimate.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for his explanation; but it appeared to him that the position they were in was this—that a proposition was made to-night which every hon. Member in the House regarded as one on a par with any other proposition made in Committee—namely, that the Vote did not require a subsequent Act of Parliament to secure its validity.
§ MR. COURTNEYobserved, that no Vote was complete until it was embodied in an Act of Parliament.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, he did not affect to be acquainted with financial law; he thought there was only one kind of law, the law made by a Parliament and not by the Treasury. It was strikingly 1838 unfair and improper to alter Acts of Parliament in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman; and he desired to know whether it was a custom often adopted? Let him take, for instance, the case of the Land Act. Certain salaries were appointed to be paid, and certain Judges were appointed, who were to receive those salaries. Would the hon. Gentleman tell him that if there was a desire on the part of the Government to increase the salaries of any of the Judges, or of the Sub-Commissioners, he would put down in the Votes a sum for the increase of such salaries, and he would merely add a note that that was a sum in excess of that authorized by the Act of Parliament? Of course, the hon. Gentleman dared not do anything of the kind; if he did, he (Mr. Leamy) would like to know what would be the language held by hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. It was because the Irish were only a small Party, and it was because the hon. Gentleman knew that every measure sought by the Government would be supported by the mechanical following of the Government, irrespective of its merits, that he had not hesitated to put down this sum to-night, and ask the House to vote it away. The hon. Gentleman had very courteously replied to him, and he, of course, did not hold the hon. Gentleman responsible in the matter; others were responsible for this Vote. But what he wanted to know was this—that if he, or some of his hon. Friends, had not got up to raise this question, would the hon. Gentleman, who had sat through the Sabbath morning—would they have voted this sum of money; would they have gone away knowing that they had increased the salaries of these County Court magistrates, notwithstanding that there was an Act of Parliament fixing a proper salary; would they have thought they were merely passing a Vote in the ordinary way? The present was only another instance of the way Irish Members were dealt with by this intolerant and extravagant Irish Ministry. This Vote had been sprung upon the Committee.
§ MR. TREVELYANrose to Order. He thought that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Leamy) should be asked to withdraw the expression that the Vote had been "sprung upon the Committee." 1839 As a matter of fact, the Vote had been before the Committee for weeks, and there was a complete explanation on one side of the Paper.
§ MR. LEAMYsubmitted that the phrase "sprung upon the Committee" was one that was continually used.
THE CHAIRMANI think the expression is not out of Order; but whether it is true or not is a different question.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland wished to contest the point, he might do so; but there was no use in dealing with English Members, even those below the Gangway. If they were above the Gangway, they might accept their statements; but when he saw the way in which they acted, especially the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who was such a champion of liberty, except when it came home to himself, he could not pay much regard to them. He wished to put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether it was possible to go outside the Act of Parliament, which fixed the salaries to be paid to Resident Magistrates, by a Vote in Committee? He could not be satisfied with the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, because this was a new kind of procedure and practice; but he would appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland whether, in the face of the Act of Parliament fixing the salaries, this course could be adopted?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, that after being in the House for several hours, and when he was very tired, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Leamy), who had generally treated him with courtesy, suddenly attacked him, and asked why his Colleagues did not throw him over? That he thought was rather too strong. The real fact of the matter was that this Vote was far from having been sprung on the House. It was a Vote which carried out, in a perfectly legal manner, a course of policy which had been explained to the House as long ago as last year. When he and Lord Spencer went to Ireland they found certain machinery for preserving law and order through the Resident Magis- 1840 trates. That system was effective; but it erred in two respects. In the first place, it was a very expensive arrangement; and, in the next place, it confused the functions of the magistrates and the police, and placed over the police a class of officers who had great powers as magistrates. They, accordingly, determined to alter the system into a form which would be more satisfactory in a legislative and judicial aspect. That was no small object in their eyes; but it was demanded by the necessity of supervising law and order in the country. Therefore, last year, they introduced a Bill which had a good many objects, among which was the setting up of divisional Commissions. The Bill was opposed on account of that, and other provisions, and therefore the Bill was withdrawn. He regretted that, because the great reduction of expenditure which their proposal would have brought about could not be effected; and he was also sorry that hon. Gentlemen who were always making charges against the Government on account of the salaries of officials in Ireland did not co-operate with the Government. He was sorry that several of the proposals in that Bill could not be carried out; but there was one which, in a modified form, could be carried out, and that was one which greatly reduced the salaries of the Resident Magistrates, and, at the same time, modified their functions and rendered them more satisfactory. In place of the Resident Magistrates, the Lord Lieutenant appointed four divisional magistrates, who received very much smaller salaries and allowances; but on precisely the same footing as the Resident Magistrates. The Lord Lieutenant reduced the powers below those of the Resident Magistrates, and the result of this proceeding, which was perfectly legal, was to greatly reduce the expenditure—from, in fact, £17,000 a-year to £7,200. The business of the country was, he believed, better organized now than when it was under the Resident Magistrates, and the gain to the country had been between £9,000 and £10,000 a-year. That was his explanation.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had looked for some adequate reply to the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy); but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had 1841 confined himself to considerations which influenced the Government in making certain changes. He left altogether untouched the legal objection taken by the hon. Member. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) was a little more a rash, and, instead of leaving to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland the task of defending the position of the Government upon this legal point, he gallantly rose to the charge. The argument he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) wished to put forward was that the Act 37 & 38 Vict. contained a retrospective clause, in express terms, limiting the sum to be paid to-Resident Magistrates in Ireland, and that it would necessarily follow that a Vote of this House would repeal this Act. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), however, traversed the contention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and held that a clause of that kind must be repealed in express terms, or by such implication as must be obvious. But with regard to the matter of fact, his contention in reply to the hon. Gentleman was that the Appropriation Act had nothing to do with rates of pay. It simply appropriated to certain services, described in general terms, certain sums of money, and did not fix the rates of pay. A Court of Law would not recognize the Estimates, and there was nothing in the Appropriation Act to support the contention of the hon. Gentleman. Therefore, the argument of the hon. Member for Waterford remained untouched. Here was an Act of Parliament which expressly limited the maximum pay of magistrates. His hon. Friend said they would require equal authority to increase the amount, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury trusted to the Appropriation Act, which, however, was quite inadequate, as he had shown.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that was the first time he had ever discussed or risen to answer a legal question at 4 o'clock in the morning. The statement of his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) was quite correct. They must go to the Estimate to see that the Appropriation Act did not go beyond the Estimate, and in that way they had a check which was perfectly legal. There was nothing new in what the hon. Member for Queen's 1842 County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had stated. The process of Supply was completed by the passing of an Act of Parliament embodying the Votes, and that would be a legal alteration of the salaries under consideration.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, there was another question he would like to ask—namely, whether it was competent to this Committee to vote the salary of a man who had no salary by Act of Parliament—say, £1,000 a-year?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it was not competent to the Committee to vote a salary of £1,000 a-year as a salary; but it was competent to them to vote a specific sum of money.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, there was no indication respecting the question of salaries. There was nothing here to indicate that this sum was to be given for six months. It was true there was an Act of Parliament fixing the salary which the County Court magistrates were to receive. Would it, he asked, be competent for the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to come to Parliament and say, "I want a Vote of £1,000 for Judge O'Hagan, in addition to the salary he now has;" and would it be competent for the Committee to pass such a Vote?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, it would be competent to vote any Judge a specific sum. He could assure hon. Gentlemen there would be ample opportunity afforded them for discussing any sum of money given to one person.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that no doubt the point was very clear in the hon. and learned Gentleman's (the Attorney General's) own mind; but he (Mr. Sexton) knew what Irishmen would think tomorrow about this very smart financial device which had been so suddenly brought to light. He had little doubt also as to what honest Englishmen would think about this transaction. By an Act of Parliament which appeared on the Statute Book, the salaries of certain magistrates were fixed. Every Act of Parliament, as they knew, passed through various stages in the House of Commons; they then were taken up to the House of Lords; and then, after passing that House, they received the Assent of the Crown. All these proceedings were taken in order that the 1843 subjects might receive the serious and deliberate attention of both Houses of Parliament. Last year the Government introduced a Bill in the House of Lords to increase the salaries of Resident Magistrates. The Bill, however, encountered such opposition in the House of Commons that the Government were unable to pass it. They found here, at the foot of the page, in surprisingly small type, a note which certainly had not attracted his attention, and which he did not hesitate to say was unnoticed by 19–20ths—the Government had endeavoured, by a simple line of type, to escape the effect of their defeat last year, and to escape the examination and scrutiny which would be given to a Bill regularly introduced into Parliament. He asserted that this amounted to an attempt to hoodwink the Representatives of the people. It amounted to a device to extract from the House of Commons a Vote for the expenditure of public money without enabling the House to understand what was before it. It amounted to an attempt to get the Committee to pass this Estimate without their knowing that the salaries of magistrates were fixed by Act of Parliament. It would thus be seen how public money was filched away by a device which was nothing else but an attempt to obtain, by a side wind, and by a delusive and discreditable course, money which could only have been regularly and constitutionally obtained by the passing of an Act of Parliament. He presented the Government with their own proposition. When the question came to be understood by the general body of the House, and more especially by financial critics, he had not the least doubt the Government would be compelled to withdraw part of this Estimate, and to fall back upon the course which they unsuccessfully attempted last year—namely, to introduce a Bill. If they wanted to pay a higher salary to their instruments in Ireland, they must pay that higher salary by the only mode which was recognized in law. He should not delay the Committee in considering the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker). He (Mr. Sexton) had hoped that before this the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have felt called upon to offer some further reply. The speeches of the Chief Secre- 1844 tary for Ireland and of the Solicitor General for Ireland had been compared to those of two lawyers—that of the Chief Secretary appeared to be a speech of a man who had read his brief; while that of the Solicitor General appeared to be the speech of a lawyer who had only taken a peep at his brief, when he came into Court. The hon. and learned Gentleman hoped that nothing would be said to cause the Lord Lieutenant to forego his merciful intention to remit the police tax in the case of Hallissey. He (Mr. Sexton) despised that threat. Whenever Irish Members spoke openly and inconveniently of Irish grievances, they were told that, if they continued to do so, certain inconvenient results might follow. Inconvenient results had followed their plain speaking; but those results had never induced them to hesitate for an instant. They would continue, upon every occasion, to say in the House of Commons what they considered to be desirable and necessary in the public interest, without regard to how it might affect themselves and others. A second reason why he disregarded the threat of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General was that the people of Ireland were now in a resolute mood, and he believed they would take the word of advice which had been given them to-night. He believed they would feel and understand that the safety of their rights and the integrity of their homes were not so concerned in the recovery of the police tax as they were in the payment of rack rents. If the Government persisted much longer in imposing a tax which was alien to the spirit of civilization, which was a disgrace to Constitutional rule, which was not required by the circumstances of Ireland, they would find themselves in a net of difficulty from which extrication might not be easy. He charged the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Solicitor General for Ireland with suppressing a material fact. The imposition of this tax had occurred in districts almost crimeless. He referred the Chief Secretary for Ireland to his own language of a recent date; he referred the right hon. Gentleman to his own admission that the state of Ireland with regard to crime was a state which would not be discreditable to any country in the world; and he asked the right hon. Gentleman why, in the face of his own 1845 admission, did the Government obstinately and blindly insist upon the imposition of police and blood taxes which could only be tolerable and conceivable in countries barbarously governed in the mediæval ages of the world? They had asked why Captain Plunkett arrested the public leaders of the people, but they had received no reply. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland made a weak attempt to shield Captain Plunkett, by transferring to the Government of Dublin Castle the onus of the suppression of public meetings. He (Mr. Sexton), however, remembered a remarkable declaration which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland only the other day. Speaking upon the question of the suppression of public meetings, the right hon. Gentleman said there never was a meeting announced in Ireland for the purpose of discussing politics from a popular standpoint that the Government were not recommended and implored by some body of persons to suppress it. He (Mr. Sexton) had no doubt that Captain Plunkett belonged to the body of persons to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. He could assure the Chief Secretary for Ireland that if the Government had acted towards Captain Plunkett as he deserved, it would have been quite possible to hold quiet and peaceable meetings in Cork as it was in other parts of Ireland. Another grotesquely weak argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland was that proclamations of meetings in Ireland had frequently been delayed, because the Government had to consider the subject. They had been told already by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that when the Government suppressed meetings in County Cork they did so upon the advice of Captain Plunkett. They had been told that, whenever a meeting was suppressed, it was not suppressed because of circumstances suddenly arising, but because of well-known pre-existing facts. They had been told that meetings were suppressed, because two men jumped over a hedge; because a parish priest was evicted. All these facts were well known; and if this debate had made one thing clearer than another, it was that the reasons for the suppression of the meetings in Ireland 1846 were of a most nonsensical nature. It was ridiculous for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to state that the proclamations were delayed because the subject had to be considered. In the case of every meeting proclaimed in Cork, the facts alleged by the Chief Secretary for Ireland as the reasons for the suppressions were known to Captain Plunkett and to the Government, in some cases months, and in other cases weeks, before the meetings were announced. Captain Plunkett had the telegraph wires at his service; he had only to telegraph from his palace in Cork to the Lord Lieutenant's palace in Dublin, and everything was settled. He (Mr. Sexton) repeated the accusation made at the opening of the debate, that the Government and Captain Plunkett knew, days and weeks before, the cases upon which they relied. They delayed the proclamations until the eve of the meetings, until the very days upon which the meetings were held, and for what reason? For no other reason but that the people might be allowed to assemble on the scene; that they might be allowed to protest, perhaps to revolt; and that, therefore, Plunkett Pasha, the great terror of the Southern Provinces, might be able to relieve the tedious ways of civil rule; that he might be able to apply to the people the means of violence and force. As to the blacksmith Hallissey, the Government appeared to find him a white elephant. He (Mr. Sexton) had no doubt they would find they had obtained an evil legacy in this blacksmith. For the sake of this disreputable creature, who had given up the attempt to earn an honest livelihood, who had become a riotous person, who thought, like others, he could take up with advantage the trade of informer—for the sake of this creature they had tormented a poor pastoral and hard-working community; for the sake of this creature they continued to persecute honest peasantry, and had made to them the extraordinary and unparalleled proposal that, unless they subscribed to send the man out of the country, they must be content to lie under a heavy burden. Let England continue this tax a little longer; they would find that, as they had to abandon the imposition of Church rates on Quakers in this country, and tithes in 1847 Ireland, they would have to forego this police tax as repugnant to all civilized law, as one against which the public conscience revolted, and as one which could not be sustained. He was certain that if the Government had no moral sense of the enormity of what they were doing; if their consciences would not induce them to pause in their attempt to force the tax on the people, they would, to their meanness, add the disgrace of failure.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he could now understand why the Government were so anxious to snatch this Vote that night. It was said it was absolutely necessary to thrust it down the throats of the Committee at 2 o'clock on Sunday morning; and now he found the Vote concealed a thing of which the Government might well feel ashamed. Thanks to the acumen of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy), it was now seen why the Government were so anxious; and if this discussion had not been continued the Government would have obtained that power by a side wind which they never could get openly. The Bill of last Session was vehemently opposed by Irish Members; but it was now attempted to gain the power to give these salaries under a Vote of Supply. The logic of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was extra ordinary; he said, perfectly truly, that if the Vote of the Committee was followed by the Appropriation Act, it would legalize the payments to these gentlemen. That was logical, and no one could con test it; it was an impregnable position; but what happened? The Appropriation Act was only for a year, and thon its power lapsed; but the Police Bill proposed that these satraps should be perpetual. Was it proposed to make these salaries perpetual? [" No, no!"] The right hon. Gentleman opposite the Chancellor of the Exchequer dissented——
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I said this Vote would not make them perpetual.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, yes; but let there be an understanding on the general question. Was it proposed by the Government to make these salaries perpetual? Could the Government hope to obtain, in Committee, on Sunday morning, at half-past 4, the consent of Irish 1848 Members, who opposed the Bill of last year, to setting up four satraps in Ireland? They would continue to oppose the proposal—a proposal to give Captain Plunkett and his compatriots in crime propagation—salaries to afford the means for their continuance in Ireland. They had shown how, like cause and effect, these salaries had been followed by crime. Captain Plunkett desired the continuance of disorder in Ireland. The House had had recently a quotation from Edmund Burke, as to agitators living on disorder, and there was another party in Ireland which lived on disorder. How did Captain Plunkett obtain his extra salary? Were there peace in Ireland, would Captain Plunkett be worth his wages, or worth his salt? He was given extra salary for extra duty, and he had extraordinary duty because of extraordinary crime. And why the extra crime? Because of the putting down of peaceful meetings and encouragement to outrage. The Government had hoped to snatch this Vote in a surreptitious manner. It had been allowed it was unusual; let the precedents for it be shown in the House, and when their relevancy could be studied, and when leading Members of the Opposition were present, to bring their experience to bear on the proposal of the Government. Irish Members were not likely to have official experience, and they had nothing but the ipse dixit of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), which they accepted as a statement bounded by his official position, and made under official stress, at half-past 4 in the morning. Contrast his statement, made in the heat of debate, with the cold light of precedent, and the actual facts of previous cases. However much they condemned the conduct of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; however much they condemned the practice of snatching, under lump sums for law charges in Ireland without sub-heads, particular Votes in connection with the Prevention of Crime Act investigations and informers, they did not expect from him that he would attempt to get by a Supplementary Vote that which was ignominiously withdrawn in a Bill last Session. If this Vote was not intended to be snatched rapidly from the House, why put it in the nature of a Supplementary Vote? 1849 They all knew the usual character of Supplementary Estimates; that they were of a special description, supposed to be necessitated by some circumstance of peculiar urgency. What was the special urgency of the salary of Captain Plunkett? Could he not wait another year, or until the general Estimates came on? Were Members to have dust thrown in their eyes, because Captain Plunkett was in a hurry to draw his extra salary? Was Captain Plunkett in receipt of this extra salary? The Committee were frequently told—"You must vote the money now, because it is already spent." Had Captain Plunkett received his extra salary? There was no answer. Cancel the extra portion of this Vote. It could be brought in next year. If Captain Plunkett was suffering from the want of it, help him from the Secret Service money. A more extraordinary proposition he never heard of than, on a Sunday morning, to ask the Committee to adopt a Vote perfectly illegal and unconstitutional. There had been an explanation that explained nothing; there had been a statement from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that the Vote was legal when passed; but it was not passed, and was not legal yet; therefore this unprecedented Vote was unconstitutional. He might be told other Votes were not legal until the Act was passed; but, at least, the Government had precedent and custom on which to base their practice. This Vote was put forward without any statement, until one was wrung from the Government by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy). Did the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland think that, if he were proposing, say, a Navy Vote of an entirely novel character, between 2 and 5 on a Sunday morning, that it would not be stoutly resisted by such Members as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and Portsmouth (Mr. T. C. Bruce) and others? But because Irish Members had not the support of public opinion, the right hon. Gentleman ventured on a proposal of this kind. He (Mr. Healy) ventured to say the Government would rue the day they tried to snatch a Vote of this kind from the Irish Party. The proposal would have to pass through the Report stage, and when the Appropriation Bill came on, it would be fought through all its 1850 stages. Irish Members had no birds to shoot in August. He was surprised that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had led the Government into such a mess; he gained nothing by these mole-like methods of getting money. Instead of gaining, the Government would lose time; and the judgment of the whole country would condemn the attempt to snatch a Vote on Sunday morning.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, in reference to the remarks lately made, he forgot, when he answered the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny), that a good while ago he was asked, in reference to these additional magistrates, the names, districts, and pay. The hon. Member asked for a Return, and he (Mr. Trevelyan) said he was ready to state the names and districts——
§ MR. HEALYrose to Order. It would be in the recollection of the Chairman that earlier in the day a right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench raised a question of Order in reference to a re mark made by the right hon. Gentle man the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt). He (Mr. Healy) was just informed that when he was remarking, in reference to the Appropriation Bill, that Irish Members had no birds to shoot in August, the hon. Member for Oldham, and he would name him, Mr. Lyulph Stanley, said "landlords"——
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must not allude to another hon. Member except by the name of the place he represents.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he only wished to thoroughly identify him. While he was speaking, the hon. Member said "landlords," thereby imputing murder to hon. Members on that side. Was such a remark in Order, made across the floor of the House?
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that day the Speaker had ruled, when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was stated to have said that a vote of the House was attempted to be carried by a "dirty trick," that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to have made that statement. He (Mr. Healy) asked, was it in Order, was it to be tolerated, that the hon. Member for Oldham, always offensive 1851 to Irish Members, should shout across the floor, imputing murder to Irish Members?
THE CHAIRMANSo much depends on the manner, the way, the tone, in which it was said. If the hon. Member for Oldham had shouted it across the House, I should have heard it, and other hon. Members would have heard it. If he made the observation in confidence to an hon. Member beside him, it is not for me to judge. If it had been used in debate, I should have had an opportunity of judging, and should know how to act.
§ MR. HEALYI remember, Sir, on a former occasion, in the time of the late Speaker, when your ruling on a point of Order differed from the Speaker's, the Speaker was sent for, and consulted. The Speaker's ruling to-day, in my opinion, was distinctly different from yours on this, a similar question; and I respectfully ask that you now leave the Chair, as I have seen done before, in order that you consult Mr. Speaker on the point of Order as to whether the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) has a right to shout a charge of murder across the House.
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is not sufficiently aware of the Rules of the House; that is a Question that could not be put to the Committee. I am not aware in what way I have differed from the ruling of the Speaker. Neither am I aware that the Speaker has any power to reverse any ruling I may give as Chairman.
§ MR. HEALYFor the purpose of testing the matter, and seeing that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) has not had the courtesy to do what the Secretary of State for the Home Department thought it was best to do towards English Members this afternoon, I move that you leave the Chair for the purpose of consulting the Speaker.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)That would be quite unprecedented. The Chairman has given his decision. I was present when the Speaker gave his decision, and it was exactly in the same words as the Chairman's.
§ MR. HEALYAm I to understand that the present Leader of the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will allow his followers to make a charge of 1852 this kind against the Irish Members, and that he will get up at the Table, and, without saying a word of condemnation of the charge, simply attempt to get the whole matter put aside?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)Sir, I am not to be browbeaten by language of that kind. I spoke quite temperately and quietly. All I said was that I was present when the Speaker ruled on the matter to which the hon. Member referred, and that the Speaker ruled precisely in the same words as the Chairman has ruled just now. It is not my business to make any representations to hon. Members as to whom there is no statement of what they said. All my business is to say that the Chairman has stated his ruling, and that his ruling is strictly accurate.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORThe right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just stated that your ruling was strictly accurate. The point on which you ruled was perfectly plain—namely, that the proposal that you should leave the Chair, in order that your ruling might be possibly overruled by the decision of the Speaker, was a proposal which could not be put from the Chair. Upon that, Sir, your ruling was most clear; but you have not yet ruled upon the much more important question which was brought to your notice by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). I heard the expression, and I heard it with amazement and indignation, not to say disgust. I was not certain who made use of the expression; but I believe it was made by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley). Since he has been charged with it, and has sat now for some minutes without any disclaimer, I am forced to conclude the charge is well founded. That charge is a serious one. The hon. Member has, by implication, charged us with the crime of murder.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORI am going to bring the point of Order to your notice.
THE CHAIRMANWill the hon. Member be so good as to put any new point of Order? The former one I have disposed of.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORWhich one?
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORI want to submit a point of Order in connection with that. I do not know, Sir, whether it is within your personal recollection—it will probably be in the recollection of many hon. Members now in the House—that last year I made an observation in a private conversation respecting another hon. Member of this House. A Gentleman sitting behind me overheard the observation, and thereupon brought it to the notice of the Speaker. The Speaker addressed himself to me—or, rather, called upon me to make such an explanation with regard to the observation as I thought necessary. He left the matter to me, with a very strong suggestion as to what I ought to do—namely, to withdraw the expression. I did withdraw the observation. Now, Sir, I take that as an authoritative ruling in a case very similar to the present. I imputed nothing to the hon. Member I referred to; but the private conversation was sufficiently loud for others sitting near to hear what was being said. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), however, shouted across the floor of the House; and, therefore, if anything, his offence is much more serious than mine was. I ask you, Sir, to adopt the course which the Speaker adopted on the occasion I have referred to.
THE CHAIRMANThe point in regard to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) has been already determined. I have stated that if I had heard the expression, or if I had any reason to believe that he had made it in debate, I should not have had a moment's hesitation as to how I should have ruled. That has been determined, and I understood the hon. Member to rise to a new point of Order.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORI rose, Sir, to bring under your notice the ruling of the late Speaker, Sir Henry Brand.
§ MR. HEALYSir, as you have declined to reprove the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) in any way, I beg to give Notice that, on Monday next, I shall raise this question when the Speaker is in the Chair.
§ MR. O'BRIENMay I inquire, Sir, whether a Member on these Benches would have been at liberty to cry out 1854 "Liar!" in the hearing of the hon. Member for Oldham, though not addressing himself to the Chair?
THE CHAIRMANI wish to state, for the information of the hon. Member, that if an observation of that kind were made, when I heard it I should know how to deal with it.
§ MR. BIGGARI beg leave to move that you do now report Progress, and I do so for two reasons. The one is, that there should be an opportunity afforded of consulting the Speaker upon the point under discussion. In the last Parliament I made an objectionable remark, and Mr. Speaker Brand ruled that oven improper expressions used in the Division Lobby came within the censure of the Chair. The other reason why I wish to report Progress is, that the Government should have an opportunity of considering their position with regard to this particular Vote. The Vote is of a most irregular character; and, in their own interest, I submit to them the desirability of considering their position between now and Monday, with the view of withdrawing the Vote entirely from the notice of the House. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) has said that if this Vote is persisted in by the Government, unpleasant discussions will arise on its future stages, and I may say that what has taken place with regard to this particular Vote will be a strong incentive to us to refuse to pass Estimates at a late hour of the night.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYI wish to make a personal explanation. In the first place, it is quite correct that I did use the word "landlords" when the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) said that there was no occasion for him and his hon. Friends to go to shoot grouse in August. [Mr. HEALY: I said birds.] Well, grouse or birds—they are much the same. First, let me say I do not impute, and do not imagine, that any hon. Members opposite have any desire, or ever would shoot a landlord or anyone else. I would rather identify the hon. Members' constituents than themselves with the word. I beg to withdraw the expression as it was heard, and hope hon. Member's will not think it applied to themselves. Hon. Members will understand that words which are in the nature of taunts are not always meant to be taken strictly; but, 1855 of course, if they are, they must be withdrawn.
§ MR. SEXTONI support the Motion of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar).
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) has already moved to report Progress once or twice this evening, and certainly he will not be in Order in making such a Motion now.
§ MR. O'BRIENsaid, that, in that event, he would move to report Progress. He considered the discovery made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy) had completely altered the complexion of matters.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—(Mr. O'Brien.)
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he hoped the Committee would discuss the extremely important point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy) a little longer. With respect to the supposed invalidity of what had been done, he pointed out that last year precisely the same thing happened. Votes were taken in excess of salaries fixed, and the matter was mentioned in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. That Committee recommended that, under the circumstances, a special note referring to the excess salaries should be inserted in the Supplementary Estimates. That had been done, and a note had been inserted in the Vote explaining matters. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had said he would fight this Vote at every stage. He hoped the hon. Member would not think it necessary to carry out his threat, because there had certainly been no sharp practice whatever on the part of the Government. He trusted that they would be allowed to take the Vote to-night, because, if thought necessary, the question could be further considered on the Report of Supply which was to be taken on Monday.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had the greatest possible respect for the opinion of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney); but neither he, nor the Public Accounts Committee could make law. What was done in the Appropriation Act? There was in the Appropriation Act, Schedule B, Part 14, 1856 Sub-head 31, a certain sum of money for the salaries and allowances and expenses of various County Court officers and magistrates in Ireland.
THE CHAIRMANI do not wish to stop the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor); but he would be more in Order if the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) would withdraw his Motion to report Progress. I could then put the Original Question, and the hon. Gentleman would be able to speak.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the words the Chairman had just read in proposing the Original Question were precisely the words which were in the Appropriation Act; and the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney) would have the Committee suppose that those words would, by implication at least, repeal the express terms of an Act of Parliament.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that what he had stated was, that the terms of the Act of Parliament would be superseded by the terms of the Appropriation Act.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that that was precisely the point he disputed, for the reason that the amount put in the Appropriation Act Schedule was a sum of money under a certain heading, the words of which he had read. That money was distributed under 10 or 12 different sub-heads.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUEE (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the Statute was merely an indication of what Parliament, at the time, considered should be the salary; but this might be increased for any year by the Appropriation Act based on an Estimate for a higher rate.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had avoided the point, that an application was made to Parliament to increase these salaries, but Parliament refused; and then the right hon. Gentleman took the matter into his own hands, and slipped in a Vote to give these salaries over the head of Parliament. He thought this was irregular, and on Monday he should have an opportunity of speaking upon this matter. He also wished to point out the general conduct of the administration of law in Ireland with regard to these Resident Magis- 1857 trates, whom the Government had bribed to misconduct themselves.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had made a reference to the subject to which he thought the right hon. Gentleman was about to reply.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, a few weeks ago the hon. and learned Member had asked for the names of these officials, and he had then given their names and their districts; and about a month ago he had informed the House that the salaries were to be increased to the amount of £2,000 a-year for each, with allowances.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's statement was substantially correct. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman's answer, the Government would decide to arrange these four districts in Ireland and appoint Resident Magistrates; but the right hon. Gentleman had not given them the names of the Resident Magistrates. However, that was not of much importance. He had moved for a Return which had been granted, and he hoped it would soon be in the hands of Members.
§ MR. DEASYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Solicitor General for Ireland had carefully avoided the subject of the discussion. It had been pointed out that a large extra force of police had been quartered on the City of Cork, which was one of the most peaceable cities in the Island, and perhaps in the United Kingdom. The only duty they had to perform had been to keep jurors out of the Court at the Assizes.
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, the pay proposed in these Estimates was £1,000 a-year only. A much larger question was started than was raised in this question by the question of extra police.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, it was too late to make a speech to-night; but he had put a series of questions in connection with his own constituency without getting answers. He was quite willing to forego answers at the present time; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to give answers on the Report stage.
§ MR. BIGGARcalled the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the case of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. The Chief Secretary had stated that Mr. Clifford Lloyd 1858 had already had about six months' leave.
THE CHAIRMANI understand that the case of Mr. Clifford Lloyd is not in any way connected with this Vote.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, it was important to know whether any of this Vote was for Mr. Clifford Lloyd. Very likely part of it was for him. So far as he knew, part of this money was for him; but what he would like to know was, why Mr. Clifford Lloyd should have this leave of absence?
§ MR. TREVELYANsaid, six months' leave of absence had already been given, and it was the intention of the Lord Lieutenant to extend that leave of absence to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, if it was desired for the Public Service, up to a period of two years. He had made inquiries with reference to Mr. Clifford Lloyd's pay, and he could assure the House that that gentleman had never drawn double pay for one single day. In answer to the hon. Member (Mr. Deasy), he had already found time during this discussion to write to Cork for very full and minute information concerning the extra police, and he had been careful to raise all the points upon which he desired full information. The new rates of pay proposed for Divisional Magistrates was £1,000 a-year, with no other allowance than those which they would draw as ordinary magistrates—£100. The Special Resident Magistrates drew extra remuneration £300, an allowance of £360 a-year, and forage £100. The great saving was in their staffs. Before this financial year closed he would lay on the Table a short Bill providing for the appointment of Divisional Magistrates.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he would suggest that the Government should pay the debts of Mr. Clifford Lloyd in Ireland. He would not pay his debts, and he had no redeeming quality at all.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, they would not prolong the discussion; but they proposed to divide against the Vote. He would like to know whether the Chairman intended to make a report to the Speaker of the circumstance in connection with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley)? He might add that the apology of the hon. Member aggravated the offence.
§ Original Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 7: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 42.) [5.35 A.M.]
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he protested against the Resolutions being reported, because they were of a thoroughly unconstitutional character, and quite indefensible. He would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing; but he protested against a system of forcing through illegal Votes by an unprincipled mechanical majority.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, in assenting to the Vote they held themselves free to give the Bill, when brought in, their earnest opposition.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, as the Chairman had stated he would not report the incident in relation to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), he (Mr. Sexton) would take an early opportunity of bringing the matter before the House. It was not, perhaps, a question of Privilege; but it was a serious and very 1860 grave offence, and aggravated by an apology by which the hon. Member transferred the insult to the constituents who sent Members to the House.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, if the expression bad come from any other Member of the House he should have considered it singularly offensive; but, coming from the quarter it did, he did not think it was worthy of notice.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, in reference to this incident, he thought the hon. Member for Oldham's conduct particularly offensive. He would appeal to the Chairman to look up authentic precedents, to see if there was reason to reverse his ruling.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
§ Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
§ House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock on Sunday morning till Monday next.