SUPPLY.—REPORT. (Hansard, 17 March 1884)

§ MR. KENNY
said, he did not, at this advanced hour (3.50 A.M.), press for a reply to the questions he had found it necessary to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant with regard to the action of the magistrates in Ireland. Still, if the right hon. Gentleman was in a position to reply, he might find it convenient to do so now.

§ MR. HEALY
asked whether the two years' leave of absence, even if it were without pay, which had been given to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, had not been without 147 precedent? Professor Baldwin, notwithstanding the meritorious work in which he had been engaged, had received only one year's leave of absence. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been transferred from Limerick to Egypt for two years, and it was desirable that some explanation should be given of that long leave—though Heaven knew they did not want him back in Ireland. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was now exercising his tyranny on the Egyptians. He had first practised on the Burmese; then he went to Ireland; and ultimately he was sent to Cairo. Would he come back to Ireland? If so, there would be no standing him. The House should have some statement to the effect that Mr. Clifford Lloyd would become worn out in the service on which he was now engaged, and that he would be one of those meritorious gentlemen deserving of a pension—or anything, so that they did not have him back again in Ireland. As to the Bill they had that morning induced the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to promise them, he (Mr. Healy) would ask on what date the House might expect it to be brought in?

MR. TEEVELYAN
said, he should have been very glad to have been able to answer all the questions which the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Kenny) had put to him; but the hon. Member himself seemed hardly to expect that he should do so. The only question he could answer was one which he was afraid he should not be able to reply to in a manner satisfactory to the hon. Member—namely, that in regard to the meeting which had boon stopped at Ennis, the hon. Member had given an accurate statement of the facts. The meeting had been stopped on the ground that several outrages had occurred within 10 miles of Ennis. On a previous occasion he (Mr. Trevelyan) had read a list of the outrages to the House in the hearing of the hon. Member, and those outrages had been of a nature which were like to have been very much promoted and encouraged by a speech which had recently been made at Tulla, County Cork, by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). The hon. Member was advertized to address the meeting that was suppressed, and that was among the motives which had induced the Executive to put a stop to the demonstration. The hon. Member for Mouaghan 148 (Mr. Healy) had asked him two questions, one relating to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and the other having reference to a. subject which he (Mr. Trevelyan) had promised to bring forward. With regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, his impression was that he had said that arrangements would be made for giving leave of absence, if necessary, for two years. Precedents might easily be found for gentlemen having received leave of absence of that kind, particularly in cases where public servants had been sent to Public Departments in India and other places. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Not for more than a year.] In the case of Sir Rivers Wilson a leave of absence of considerable length had been granted. He himself had been in India when a whole batch of gentlemen from the Treasury were sent to that country. Since then a financier had been sent to Turkey; and a Factory Inspector had just been sent for three years to Bombay. The hon. Member compared the two years' leave of absence of Mr. Clifford Lloyd with the one year's leave of absence to Professor Baldwin. An attack might be made upon the action of the Government from an entirely different point of view. As he had already stated, the case of Professor Baldwin was without precedent; but he was quite willing to make a precedent of it. The British Government had lent Professor Baldwin, not to another Government, but to a Company, for the purpose of carrying on proceedings in the success of which Her Majesty's Government took a friendly interest. The circumstance of lending Professor Baldwin's services was an entirely novel circumstance, but, at the same time, one which he was very glad to be connected with. As to the Bill which the Government proposed to bring in, and which the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had referred to, he hoped there would be no difficulty in his being able very soon to lay it before the House. He had already put himself in communication by letter, and had received answers by telegraph from Dublin, on the subject. It was a Bill which, if it were not necessary for him to consult with Dublin, he could draw up with the greatest ease in a single morning in his office in London. What he would pledge himself to was that, unless hon. Members opposed its introduction, or 149 made it difficult to proceed with it, he would bring it in within the present financial year. His impression certainly was that it would be a very short measure.