SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 30 August 1887 vol 320 cc473-626

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF

CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £3,978, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses.

MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

I wish, Mr. Courtney, to enter my protest against this Vote, inasmuch as I believe it to be a wasteful and a profligate, and even a wicked, expenditure of public money. In the first place, in reference to the salaries of the Viceregal Household, I see that there are 17 gentlemen who are supported at a yearly expense of £3,875. Now, we have heard a great deal of late of the sacred law of contract. I should be very glad if these offices were put up to public competition, for I am sure that in that case they could all be filled and their duties discharged, not at an annual expense of £3,875, but at an annual expenditure of £200, with quite as much benefit to the nation. Indeed, the services of these 17 gentlemen would not be worth £200 a-year. First of all, we come to the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant and the secretary's office, which costs £829 8s.; but we are not told how much the clerk gets and how much the private secretary, though I am strongly inclined to believe that the private secretary gets the lion's share. In investigating the details of this Castle Establishment, we cannot complain too much. All Castle officials, from age to age, have been afflicted with what Juvenal calls the cacoëthes scribendi. There are secretaries and secretaries. There is the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who is himself the responsible Government of Ireland, and there is an Under Secretary, an Assistant Under Secretary, and a Parliamentary Secretary, and what with one and another the amount of stationery consumed among them must be something enormous. Then, in addition to all these, the Lord Lieutenant has this private secretary. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) what are the duties of the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant? Are they the simple duties that would be discharged by a private secretary who might hold that position to a country gentleman, or oven to a public man? One would imagine that a nobleman of large fortune, drawing £20,000 a-year from his official position, would be able to afford to keep a private secretary himself, if he wanted one, especially as he has in all 23 other secretaries. I will suggest what the duties are. I can only conceive them to be to revise the Lord Lieutenant's speeches and supply them to the Press; and, if that be so, all I can say is that this private secretary is the best paid man for literary labour in the whole universe. I hope and trust it will not be considered another exhibition of Disraeli's Calamities of Authors that a private secretary should get for literary work upon the Lord Lieutenant's speeches £829 per annum. Then we come to the aides-de-camp, who, four in number, get £200 a-year each. Of them I say nothing, for I do not know what their duties are, though I have seen them in processions. Next we come to au important official, the State steward, who is very well paid at £505 19s. 4d. per annum. We laugh at these things; but we and our constituents, to whom every penny is of importance, have to pay the piper. The State steward, as I have said, has £505 19s. 4d. a-year. I do not know what his duties are, and if I am wrong, no doubt, the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton), whom I see opposite, and who is intimately acquainted with the details of Viceregal administration, will correct mo, but I understand the duties of the State steward are to introduce partners at the Viceregal dances to each other, and to assist in arranging at dinner parties what gentleman shall bring in what lady, the precedence being given by the Ulster King-at-Arms. Next we come to the Comptroller of the Household. He is paid £413 13s. 4d. per annum, and his duties are—I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is paying attention, because I hope he will be able to rebut these slanders if they be slanders—his duties are simply to pay the servants under him, and to discharge and dismiss them. I challenge contradiction upon that. Was ever a person so well paid for such work? Then I come to a gentleman whose duties I do not know, and, although I have very fair powers of invention and imagination—at least, so I flatter myself—I really cannot imagine what are the duties of the table-man, or of the Master of the Horse, or of the gentleman in waiting, unless it be to lounge about; or of the State Marshal, except it be to appear in a powdered wig; or of the riding master—indeed, there is none there. Then we come to a profligate and wicked expenditure. There is set down a telegraphist at 5s. a-day. We know that there are 365 days in a year, and for every one of them the Viceregal telegraphist receives 5s. But the Lord Lieutenant does not occupy the Viceregal Lodge for more than four months in the year, so that for the greater part of the year this telegraphist is there doing nothing, having no duties to discharge at all at the Viceregal Lodge. Here you have an official resident at the Lodge kept up at the public expense, and practically doing nothing the greater part of his time. This is a small item, no doubt, and probably may be enjoyed by some faithful retainer; but it shows the reckless and lavish expenditure which is carried on. Then there is the sergeant of the household, who gets £100 a-year —a moderate item, but it is very well known that he is well paid for his work. There are many people in Dublin who would be very glad to have his official position, connected as it is with the Viceregal Lodge—there would be quite a competition among the sergeants in Dublin if it were thrown open. Thus we have £,3,875 for these 17 officials. If I paid down £200 a-year I think I could get some change for my money, and yet have the work a great deal better done by two or three men, who could do it more properly than it is done at present. This is a kind of picturesque Hogarth's Rake's Progress in expenditure. We come now to the supply of the spiritual wants of the Lord Lieutenant, and we find that they cost the nation £789. I would not say anything about this if the Viceregal Household attended the Chapel Royal; but it is notorious that they do not attend t, and that the whole of this sum of £789 is paid for keeping up a service which is not regularly attended. The Viceregal party go to other places of worship. This sum is simply a relic of a bad old time. There was possibly at one time a real occasion for having a Viceregal service in the Chapel Royal in Dublin Castle. That was during the establishment of the Irish Church, "when there were certain Viceregal chaplains who used to come up and preach as competitors for bishoprics, and the Lord Lieutenant used to inspect them, as the Chief Secretary might inspect a batch of Resident Magistrates. But that time has now passed away. I will now analyze the expenditure under this head. The Viceregal party are now impervious to these spiritual benefits so far as they relate to Dublin Castle, and, under the circumstances, I do not much blame them. The chaplain at the Castle has £184 12s. 8d., but that is supplemented by a sum of £150 in lieu of a furnished house. That disclose? as neat a "job" as has been seen in Viceregal affairs since the time of the Union. The chaplain would not consent to be much called a mere chaplain. He is a high, mighty, and dignified official, the Dean of the Chapel Royal, with all the paraphernalia of his exalted office. But Dean Dickenson has a very comfortable living in which he lives; and therefore this sum is given him in lieu of a house, because he does not want two houses—the Viceregal residence, which he does not want, he is practically allowed to let. In addition to this, the dean is not always present in the Castle Chapel. He has to attend to the duties of his parish, and probably he is a very excellent parochial clergyman. Then there is a reading clerk, who gets £41 10s. per annum. Here, again, is a result of the old system of expenditure. The service in the Castle Chapel is now choral, so that there is no necessity for a reading clerk at all; and he is never there. This is an instance of development. In former times the Vicaregal Chapel was a small and dingy apartment; but now it is a magnificent affair, with a service which is fully choral. They have got up a choir, and there is no necessity for a reading clerk with a salary of £41 10s. Then we come to the provisions for the singing in the Viceregal Chapel, which cost a good deal more, for there are a certain number of choiristers, and the cost of the singing comes to over £300 a-year. All this for a chapel which is not attended by the public at large, for the reason that in the City of Dublin there are three very admirable trained choirs —one at Trinity College, one at Christ Church, and one at St. Patrick's Cathedral. The Viceregal party usually attend the service at St. Patrick's Cathedral. You, therefore, have in Dublin, outside the Castle, three trained choirs with admirable choral services for those who desire them. Then there is the keeper of the chapel at £98 a-year. I do not say anything against that charge. The chapel is one of the most beautiful of buildings, and the keeper shows you over it in a manner which does him infinite credit. The keeper is the only one whose assistance, if I could help it, I would retain, for, as I have contended, the chapel is not used by the Viceregal party. We must remember that Dublin Castle is about the dingiest place in the world—that no person who could avoid it would care to be in it for more than five minutes. The vulgar stamp of a gingerbread crown is very marked upon it. The Viceregal party are only there during what is called "the Dublin season," which lasts from February to March. The Dublin season begins about the 1st of February, and winds up with what is called "the sweep's bale" in March. They are in the Viceregal Lodge during that time, and they go to church at the Hibernian Military School, or, when they choose, as on last Sunday, to St. Patrick's Cathedral. I saw in the Dublin evening papers yesterday that the Viceregal party were at St. Patrick's on Sunday, and an accident, not of a very serious nature, occurred as they were coming home, not from the Chapel Royal, which costs £789 per annum, but from St. Patrick's Cathedral. This clerical establishment, therefore, is kept up from pure wantonness. The Lord Lieutenant, Sir, is rich in spiritual advisers. He has 40 private chaplains, save one. He has 39 private chaplains altogether, and every one of these gentlemen, is bound to preach once at least in the year in the Chapel Royal. They are each bound to preach possibly two, but at least one sermon a-year before the Viceregal presence. The appointments are purely honorary, and the chaplains could preach in the chapel without the expense of the Dean and choiristers and all this paraphernalia. I now come from the chapel to the ceremonial of this sham and gingerbread Court. First, we have the Ulster King-at-Arms. As I am in a very humble capacity subject to "philosophic doubt" and an inquirer after truth, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will tell me what Sir Bernhard Burke does as Ulster King-at-Arms? I do not know what he does myself, except that he possibly directs the ceremonials. But there is another thing which I believe is part of his duty—he is a "universal provider" of cheap aristocracy—a sort of Whiteley of Dublin Castle. I remember, many years ago, reading, in Uncle Tom's Cabin, a description of a little slave girl called Topsy, who said, when she was asked who were her parents, that she did not know she ever had any—" she 'spected she growed." I feel sure that if she had gone to Sir Bernard Burke, in a couple of hours he would have shown that she had "all the blood of all the Howards" in her veins. Is it not very hard that we should have to pay for all this nonsense to supply other people with pedigrees? I come now to an official the name of whose office I do not pretend to be able to pronounce. This gentleman is the Pursuivant-at-Arms. Then comes one of the most absurd things in the whole list—a boy who plays the drum has an allowance for clothing, for one kettle-drum, amounting to £12 6s. What is the kettle-drum in this case? Is it a kettle-drum that one beats, or is it an afternoon tea? Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary tell us what it is? This boy must be a person of some importance for the maintenance of the Union between the two countries. Then I come to a messenger whose income commences at £52, but rises by yearly increments to £78. That amount—£78 a-year—is fever height for subordinate officials. Then conies an official, who is, I think, unfairly dealt with. He is the office-keeper, and he only gets £30 a-year. Sir Bernard Burke gets £750 and expenses for pro- viding pretentious people with, pedigrees. When people in London want pedigrees they do not go to the office of Heralds, but to Jew's shops, and buy up old portraits. But we go to more expense in Dublin, and it costs us £1,091 per-annum. There is something more still. Among the incidental expenses of the Office-at-Arms, there is £40 put down for the insignia of the Order of St. Patrick, and £20 for emblazoning arms. What is the meaning of this charge for the insignia of the Order of St. Patrick? A nobleman—and they are all noblemen who get this order, and not new nobility either—would be quite able, and, I should think, willing, to pay for the insignia and banners of his own order. Still they always seem to have this item for insignia and banner just the same every year, with a very marvellous uniformity. Then there is this charge of £20 for emblazoning arms. But the arms are not emblazoned. I have seen them recently, and they consist of wooden helmets and wooden swords, and are to be seen in St. Patrick's Cathedral, at least for such of the Peers as were made knights before the Disestablishment of the Church. Since then—and I am glad that my Church is now saved from that great profanation—since the Disestablishment of the Church the investiture takes place in Dublin Castle, and the residue of the banners are there. I do not know what they do with them there, nor am I likely to know; but I do know them in St. Patrick's Cathedral, and a more dingy and dirty lot you could not well see anywhere. Why should the people of Ireland pay for the insignia of the Order of St. Patrick? I know something about the Order, and I say there is no historical sentiment connected with it—there is nothing high-minded about it. This Order of St. Patrick was founded at a recent date, so lately as 1783, by Lord Buckhurst, who was then Lord Lieutenant, and it was always hated and despised by the Irish people. The peer who founded it is believed to have founded it for corruption, and the charge could not be rebutted in the Irish House of Parliament that he sold peerages and appropriated the money to buy Votes in the House of Commons. He founded the Order for which a starving people have to pay, while these gentlemen who have the insignia are well able to pay for the amusement themselves, if they like it. I have now gone through this expenditure, but I have left alone such items as seem to me to have a tendency to do good to the people. Nearly the whole of the expenditure, so far as the people are concerned, is useless, and worse than useless, and I would rather take the money and throw it into the Liffey than have it appropriated in this way. Sometimes the Irish Representatives use words that possibly in their cooler moments they would not justify, but we are now advisedly attacking a system here, and I think that, on the whole, so wretched an exhibition of wanton and extravagant expenditure it would be difficult to match. There is not even an apparent excuse for it. There is not even any work shown for it—not even a suggestion that the persons for whom it is intended avail themselves of it. Are we and the people to pay for the patents of nobility of those who have no blue-blood, and to provide fictitious and pretentious blue-blood for persons who have none at a cost of £7,478? Now, Sir, on all these grounds, I contend that this expenditure is wicked and profligate and unjust, and in the interests of the rich as against the poor, and if possible it is to further the creation of an unhealthy public opinion, and to add to the pickings of a sham Court. I therefore suggest to reduce the Vote.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I think the amount set down for the private secretary is a large salary for a paid secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is a roan who has a very largo salary, but he is only an ornamental figure-head. He devotes a great deal of time to the breeding of horses and to the playing of cricket, but beyond that no one ever heard of his doing anything. In the time of Lord Spencer the ordinary course was reversed, and no doubt Lord Spencer did take the government of Ireland in hand, but in the ordinary way the Lord Lieutenant is a mere figure-head and nothing more. He occasionally dances at some ball, or does something of that sort, and for doing that we pay him £20,000 a-year and keep two houses going for him, and we spend a good deal of money in furnishing and decorating them. I want to know why we should pay his private secretary? He does not want a private secretary at all. He has not got enough to do to keep a private secretary in exercise. He has a Parliamentary Secretary and an enormous staff of clerks, as well as an Assistant Parliamentary Secretary, and an Under Secretary, and an Assistant Under Secretary. But the whole work of the Department is provided for in the Office of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. A. J. Balfour). The Lord Lieutenant's private secretary has nothing to do; but, even supposing that he had something to do, why should we pay him £800 a-year? It is a very monstrous sum to pay him. My recollection is that the private secretaries of the Ministers of England, who are hard-worked men, get nothing like £300 a-year. High-class Civil servants — very high up in the Service—got nothing like that sum. What class of man is the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant?—for we are bound to discuss the character of a man when we pay him. The private secretary is generally a man utterly untrained in matters of this kind—a young fellow picked up somewhere and put into office and sent into a good position. He is never a gentleman trained for his duties. To pay him £800 a-year is a simple farce, even supposing that he had something to do, and that his time was fully occupied. The two questions which I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary are these—first, what has this man got to do? and, secondly, why does he get £800 a-year? I think that £300 a-year would be an ample salary to give him.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

I wish to say a word on this subject of the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is a secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, though in the course of recent years he has been created or has grown into something more important than that, and is now a Cabinet Minister. But, Sir, the real assistants whom the Lord Lieutenant has are in the Office of the Chief Secretary. The amount of clerical assistance which the Lord Lieutenant has comes to over £18,000 a-year, because if you look at the Chief Secretary's Vote you will find £19,000 for one year for the Chief Secretary, for an Under Secretary, for an Assistant Under Secretary, and for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the new Parliamentary Under Secretary.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order ! It is quite irregular to enter into a discussion upon that. That comes under a separate Vote.

MR. MOLLOY

But I am dealing with the question of the secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.

THE CHAIRMAN

But this Vote is for the Household Establishment. It has nothing whatever to do with the political functions of the Lord Lieutenant.

MR. MOLLOY

Then that makes the case still more difficult to understand. What are the functions of this private secretary? Of course, when we appoint a secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, we understand that that secretary does secretarial duties. That was the reason why I pointed out that there was any amount of assistance provided already. But it is now made more difficult to understand. Perhaps the best thing we can do is to let the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary explain what are the duties of the private secretary, as it now appears that he is not a secretary in the ordinary sense.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite intelligent enough to understand my ruling, which is to prevent confusion between the political functions of the Lord Lieutenant and those functions which pertain to his Household. The political functions are quite irrelevant to tins Vote.

MR. MOLLOY

Then since this secretary is a secretary only in the Household, and is not a political secretary, it seems to me that the case is infinitely more plain than it was made out to be by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon); and I would ask, before we go any further, what are the functions and the duties of this gentleman who gets this £800 a-year, but who is not a political secretary, and has only to deal with the Household?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BAMWR) () Manchester, E.

The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Molloy) is under some misapprehension when he says that the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant gets over £800 a-year for his services. He does not get that as private secretary—he gets part as private secretary, and part to provide clerical assistance under him. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has said that the Lord Lieutenant has nothing to do, and, having nothing to do, there is no reason why he should have anyone to help him. That I put as a short summary of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. But I must dissent from that view altogether. It is very true that as between one Lord Lieutenant and another there may be greater work in one case than in another; but I believe there was never a case of a Lord Lieutenant who had not to perform functions of: a very difficult and delicate nature, and, in some cases, of a very arduous nature. Certainly, from the knowledge I have acquired of Irish Business since I came into Office, and since I came into direct personal contact with the machinery of the Irish Government, I have been more than ever convinced that to describe the functions of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as a sinecure, or even to describe them as existing merely for social purposes, is a description which gives altogether a false notion of the very important duties which the Lord Lieutenant has to perform. If it be true, as it is true, that the Lord Lieutenant, like other great officers of State, has to perform difficult and delicate functions, I do not think this House would be well advised if it attempted to deprive him of that assistance which every Minister has —the assistance of a private secretary. The salary of the private secretary used to be larger than it is now in amount. There has been no change under the existing holder, nor was there under his Predecessor; and every change which has been made during the century has been in the direction of diminution, and not of increase. There is one other misconception which it would be convenient for me now to correct, and which was held by the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal;(Mr. Mac Neill), who opened this discussion. He gave us a long and elaborate criticism on the functions of the Ulster King-at-Arms. I do not think it is necessary that I should go into details; but when the hon. and learned Gentleman told us that in this country the hardly-pressed taxpayers were paying over £800 a-year to find pedigrees for Irish gentlemen, I would remind him that the Ulster King-at-Arms, so far from being a charge upon the country, is actually a source of profit to the Treasury. The salary is not only paid, but more than paid, by the fees he receives. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no !] Well, I believe that is so.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

There is a pledge to abolish the office.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No, Sir; there is not.

MR. T. M. HEALT

Yes-it was given last year.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Well, I am not aware of it; and, at all events, it could not take effect until the present holder resigned. But at the present moment the office of the Ulster King-at-Arms, whether it be a necessary or unnecessary one, is not a charge upon the taxpayers. The salary of Sir Bernard Burke is more than made up by the fees received in the exercise of his duties.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

The foes are less, according to the Estimate.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think that is not so.

An hon. MEMBER

Then the Estimates are wrong.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If I am wrong—

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give his attention to page 175—estimated extra receipts.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I believe the income is about £900 a-year; the salary is about £700. If I am right in saying that, of course I am correct in saying that the fees pay more than the salary. The hon. and learned Member for South Donegal (Mr. Mac Neill) alluded to the sum paid for a drummer, and made very merry over that.

MR. MAC NEILL

A kettle-drummer.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That kettle-drummer is a surviving relic of the time when the Lord Lieutenant had a band which was paid for at the public expense. This drummer is the last relic of that institution, and, of course, upon his death this item will no longer appear upon the Votes. I do not think I have anything more to say.

MR. MAC NEILL

I have asked for an explanation as to the Ecclesiastical Establishment, and for some definition of the duties of those high officials, the State Steward, the Aides-de-Camps, the Gentlemen Ushers, the Riding Master, &c.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It must be evident that if you are going to have a Court—if the State is to hold a Court in Dublin—the Viceroy must have the services of the officers who are retained at all other Courts. Whether it would be a sound position to take up that there should be no Court at all is another matter—at all events, it is quite open to the hon. and learned Gentleman to use that argument; but it would not be sound to argue that, having a Representative of the Queen holding a Court in Dublin, he should not have the services which are given at every other Court.

MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has given no explanation with regard to the Ecclesiastical Establishment. I believe he was Chief Secretary last year—no, he was not; the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was—when we called attention to this question, and when we pointed out that, no matter what the religion of the Lord Lieutenant might be, the religion of the chaplain should be the same. What we want is a chaplain who would conform more closely to the character of the Vicar of Bray than the present chaplain does. The late Lord Lieutenant was a Presbyterian, and under him the office of chaplain was an absolute sinecure. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary goes to the Chapel Royal when he is in Dublin; and, therefore, the chaplain will have little or nothing to do. What we want is that the chaplain should be of the same religion as the Lord Lieutenant for the time being. If a Catholic were ever to be appointed to the Lord Lieutenancy—if, for instance, the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr. De Lisle) should ever be appointed Lord Lieutenant—he would have to pay for Mass out of his own pocket, which would be a hardship. It would be a great hardship in that case to pay for a Church of Ireland chaplain, and refuse to pay for a chaplain of any other faith. What we want is to have some self-acting machinery provided by which the religion of the chaplain should always be made to conform to the religion of the Lord Lieutenant for the time being. Otherwise I shall vote against the monstrous injustice of foisting a chaplain of a particular religion upon the Lord Lieutenant against his will.

MR. T.M. HEALY

I should like to know what are the functions which we are told press so heavily upon the Lord Lieutenant, and also how much time he has spent here in London during his short period of Office? He took a house in London at a very early period, according to The Morning Post, and as he has nothing else to do but to go about to horse races, I should like to know how his functions are performed. We are told that he was playing cricket with the I Zingari Club when the Proclamation was issued the other day, and he had to leave the cricket field and take off his cricketing clothes in order to sign the Proclamation, after which he put on his clothes, went back to the field, and replayed cricket again. That is not a sort of thing that is calculated to impress the public mind. He is said to have high and delicate functions to perform. The person who is appointed his private secretary is not worth £800, or £600, or even £ 100 a-year. We know very well what his talents are. You may argue in favour of the abolition of the Lord Lieutenant; but if you must have a Lord Lieutenant you must take him with his consequences. Still, I have a strong and rooted objection to £1,000,000 a-year being spent on him—we think him dear at the price. I am not strongly opposed to the existence of the Lord Lieutenant, but I am opposed to the expenditure of so large a sum. I am opposed to the chaplain, to Mr. Mulhall, the private secretary, to the State porter, to the steward, to the telegraphist, and to the kettle-drummer. The Lord Lieutenant should be able to carry out all the duties of his Office without all these ornamental assistants. I agree with what my hon. Friend has said as to the chaplain. I have long been striving with the Nonconformists of England to raise this point about the chaplain. You have abolished the Irish Church—why is it, then, that a chaplain has to be paid, and practically a Church kept up at the expense of the State, because there is not merely a chaplain, but he has a furnished house and a reading clerk, an organist, six boy choristers, a keeper of the chapel, and additional choristers. Thus we pay for keeping up a Church of a religion to which very few of the people belong. Not only do you keep up all this staff for a disestablished Church, but you prevent the Lord Lieutenant from being a Catholic, though that is no great loss to the Catholics. Last year, when you had a Presbyterian for Lord Lieutenant, you still kept up all this State-Church machinery; and it is time for the Nonconformists of England to rally round us on the question of abolishing State prayers belonging to a religion which is not the religion of the masses of the people. My hon. Friend entertains philosophic doubts as to whether the Chief Secretary attends the chapel. I concur in that view. If the Lord Lieutenant has any religion at all other than the religion of horse-racing, he ought to be content to go to the Church of the masses of the people. Better men than he is do. We might fairly ask for the abolition of this Chapel Royal altogether. There are plenty of churches in Dublin, and the Lord Lieutenant could take his choice of them. I see the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) in his place, and I know there is little use in attacking these official institutions except to ask the Government to say that as soon as the present holders drop off they shall not be continued. We have got several promises from the Government that I remember. When you, Mr. Courtney, were at the Treasury there was a man at Portarlington who got a pension because the Huguenots went there 200 years ago, and we got a promise that that should not be continued. We ask now for the abolition of the Dean and Chaplain, the State Steward and the State Porter, as soon as the present incumbents drop off. We do not ask for more than that —we cannot go behind Johnny Mulhall's salary—but we are entitled to ask that these officials should not be continued.

MR. DILLON

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has given no explanation of the details of the work of this gentleman who acts as private I secretary. It seems that he employs clerks to do his work. If he employs clerks to do anything at all it is all the same to us. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what work must be done, though I know very little about the office. He talks to us of the most delicate functions which the Lord Lieutenant has to perform. But the particular Department under this Vote has nothing whatever to do with polities—you told us that, Mr. Courtney—and, therefore, the business of this private secretary is not business of politics or business of State, and has nothing whatever to do with delicate functions. In plain common English, his duty and business is to direct the invitations to the Castle balls, and in order to direct them he employs all these clerks. I know something of what these gentlemen are, and if he employs and pays them he is a very great fool, for he has not work enough to keep them employed two days, or even one day a week. Now, what does it all come to? We have got this man to pay, and are called upon to vote £829 a-year for him for helping to discharge certain functions—functions so delicate that you cannot get the slightest hint as to what they are. I protest against this item. We know perfectly well what are the delicate duties of the Lord Lieutenant, if he has any, and I believe he has none. If he has any business connected with State or with his Office apart from his social duties, he has an enormous staff under the pay and control of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, more than sufficient for all the duties he has to perform. All that he has to do he does, as a matter of course, through the secretaries and under secretaries, and an enormous staff of clerks connected with the Chief Secretary's Department. This private secretary of his will have nothing to do except to attend to social matters. I want to have some indication of what the duties of this man are. In the first place, he may direct the invitations to the Castle balls. Then he may be employed in writing love-letters for the Lord Lieutenant, or else in looking after his betting-books— a matter of very great importance, no doubt; but I do not see why this House should be asked to pay for it. We are entitled to have some details as to what the duties are of the man who is paid this salary. In order to raise this question, I beg to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £829, the amount of the salary of this private secretary.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A—for Salaries—be reduced by £829, for the Salary of the Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant and his Clerks."—(Mr. Dillon.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I will not comment, Mr. Courtney, on the taste of the last few observations which fell from the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) in attacking a man who is not here to defend himself; but I will endeavour to explain to the Committee as well as I can a matter which I should have thought would not require a very long explanation. The hon. Gentleman asks what are the duties of the Lord Lieutenant. They are of two kinds, both of them important and onerous. The Lord Lieutenant is a Member of the Government of Ireland, and, as such, he is cognizant of all the acts of the Government of Ireland. He is consulted, and has considerable authority as to the policy pursued by the Government of Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will not think the Government of Ireland is so easy, and its details so few and simple, that anybody in the high and responsible position of the Lord Lieutenant can be said in that respect to hold a sinecure. Besides these functions, he has great social duties to perform. [Ironical cheers and laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may object to the peformance of such duties; but they will hardly deny that if they are to be performed they bring with them no small degree of labour and responsibility. When any man has to perform duties which I have thus described, it is perfectly absurd to say that he has not a right to such clerical assistance in the shape of these private secretaries and others as he may require. Every hon. Gentleman who has had anything to do with official life must know that it is absurd to ask the Lord Lieutenant or anyone else to depend upon the ordinary clerks of a public office. There is a vast amount of correspondence of a very confidential kind, which must be dealt with by a man in the position of the Lord Lieutenant; and just as any other Minister of State requires a private secretary, so does the Lord Lieutenant require one, and ought to have one. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) appeared to insinuate that the Lord Lieutenant did not perform the duties I have described. The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely in error. I am the person best capable in this House of judging how much the Lord Lieutenant does, and ever since I held my Office I have received constant advice and assistance from him in—

DR. TANNER

Is that why he is always in England?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

In all the details of affairs in Ireland.

MR. T. M. HEALY

How many days has he spent in Ireland?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not believe the Office has ever been filled more efficiently than now. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may take exception to that statement; but I am not aware that their sources of information are so good as mine. The hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) spoke upon the question raised previously in the debate as to the chaplain of the Established Church.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Not the Established Church.

Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

I mean the Disestablished Church. That same question was raised last year by hon. Members below the Gangway, when Lord Aberdeen, a Presbyterian, was Lord Lieutenant; but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), who was then Chief Secretary, and who is not— so far as I am aware—an ardent member of the Church of England or of Ireland, stated his opinion that the Vote should be passed in its present form; and if that was so when he was Chief Secretary, and when Lord Aberdeen was Lord Lieutenant, I need only say that any argument he used has double force under the circumstances in which we now find ourselves.

DR. TANNER

My hon. Friend has asked why this large sum of money is to be paid by the State. We object to it as a mockery, and as an underhand means of imposing on the people. We find very large salaries paid, many of these gentlemen receiving £200 a-year each; and many of them having only literary nous enough to attend at State halls in evening clothes with light blue facings. They are very, very nice—I remember that the hon. Member for Antrim looked downright handsome in them. We do not object to the Lord Lieutenant being allowed a private secretary, but we object to his being paid so inordinate a salary. I think I am entitled to ask for the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) in this matter. I would ask him to come down with his sledge-hammer of cloture on this and all other useless offices—offices that are not only useless, but absolutely ridiculous.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

The language of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in regard to this Office was marked by mock heroics. It is sheer nonsense to talk of the Lord Lieutenant and the responsible duties he has to go through. Anybody who will take the smallest trouble to follow the records of the performances of the Lord Lieutenant during his tenure of Office will find that the greater portion of his time has been spent in England, and the small balance which has been passed in Ireland has been devoted to visits to photographic shops and an attendance at flower shows. Very often a trivial observation that may be dropped from a speaker betrays more of the real drift of his thoughts and the working of his mind than more open phraseology. In the few words dropped by the right hon. Gentleman I think we have a clue to the whole matter. He referred to the constant advice and assistance which he has received from the Lord Lieutenant, who was "nominally his superior." That casual phrase betrayed the whole case. The right hon. Gentleman has gravely assured us that he has received advice and assistance from the Lord Lieutenant. If it were not for the large amount involved in the Vote, I should look upon the whole of the proceedings of Lord Londonderry as a sort of pantomime got up for the delectation of a very small section of the people of Dublin who aspire to occupy an aristocratic position in the upper circles. The Lord Lieutenant may have social duties to perform; but my contention is that when the Lord Lieutenant gets £20,000 a-year he is very well paid for performing those social duties, and that it is too much to ask that an additional £829 a-year for the performance of secretarial duties which must be of the lightest and most elementary character. Most Members of the Government in this House can get a good private secretary for £300 a-year, and no one can eon-tend that the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant's Household can have anything like the same amount of work to perform. When the Committee come to discuss the Department of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary they will come into contact with really serious work, and I think it will be found that the private secretary of the right hon. Gentleman receives £400 a-year—very much less than the amount of remuneration received by the private secretary of the Lord Lieutenant. I think it is grossly unfair to ask the British and Irish ratepayer to continue paying these sums for services that are not rendered or performed. Of course, it is the duty of the right hon. Gentleman in this House to defend this and all other Votes; but it is our duty to criticize such payments and call the attention of the country to them. I cannot at all consent to the contention of the right hon. Gentleman, that if you are to have a Lord Lieutenant in Ira-land at all you must necessarily pay all these ridiculous items in order to keep up the Office. I think that the Lord Lieutenant himself receives an unnecessarily high salary for performing merely honorary duties. He receives no less than £20,000 a-year, which, to my mind, is a most lavish sum. Lord Spencer was in the receipt of a similar sum; but he had a very considerable amount of work to do in connection with the Government of Ireland. No one will seriously contend that Lord Londonderry does anything like the same amount of work, and it will require all the ability of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to induce the House to believe that Lord Londonderry fairly earns the salary paid to him. We all know the great ability of the right hon. Gentleman and his power of assertion; but it will require the utmost exertion of both to prove to the satisfaction of the House that the present Lord Lieutenant performs any serious work in Ireland at all, and that he is anything more than an overpaid official performing useless functions, which are not for the benefit either of Ireland or of the people of that country.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I noticed a curious omission in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He rose for the purpose of justifying the amount of salary paid to the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; but in the course of his speech he did not give us the slightest indication as to how this £829 is divided between the private secretary and his clerks. Let me suppose that there are two clerks, each of whom receives £100. That would actually leave the private secretary in receipt of £600, although the private secretary to the right hon. Gentleman himself only receives £400, and the private secretary to the Under Secretary merely receives £100. Even admitting, which I very much doubt, that the Lord Lieutenant has appreciable State functions to perform in Ireland, it will not be denied that the private secretary to the right hon. Gentleman has more to do than the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, while the private secretary to the Under Secretary has most duties to perform of the three, because, as everyone knows, the private secretary to the Under Secretary located at the Castle is the officer on whom the burden of the work devolves. I should certainly like to know how it is that the private secretary to the right hon. Gentleman only receives £400 a-year, while the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant gets £600 a-year. I see no proportion in these figures, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has done good service in moving the omission of this amount. I was greatly surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say, in the presence of the Representatives of the Irish people, that he has received valuable advice and assistance from the Lord Lieutenant. Although the Lord Lieutenant, as a racing man, is not troubled with too much modesty, I am sure that no one will be more surprised, when he reads the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, than Lord Londonderry himself to find that he gives valuable advice to the right hon. Gentleman. Even in his most sanguine moments, and however much his self-esteem may be, the Lord Lieutenant must inwardly smile at the suggestion that he has ever rendered valuable assistance to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, or given him valuable advice, or, indeed, that he has given valuable advice or assistance to anybody. If there was ever any occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would consult the Lord Lieutenant if he valued his opinion, it would have been last month when he went over to Ireland for the purpose of issuing the Proclamations under the Crimes Act. That was certainly an occasion when a Lord Lieutenant, if he were capable of giving valuable advice to anybody, would have been called in to advise the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. But what did the right hon. Gentleman do? Did he consult the Lord Lieutenant?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The Lord Lieutenant was consulted on all questions connected with the Proclamations.

MR. SEXTON

The Proclamations were signed on Friday, the 19th instant, on which day the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary reached Ireland; and on the 19th the Lord Lieutenant was not in Ireland at all. But the Lord Lieutenant arrived in Ireland on the following day. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary went over to Ireland, he went to his own Lodge and not to the Viceregal residence in the Phœnix Park, and he there spent the Friday afternoon in having interviews with the magistrates and the police, and it was in those interviews, which were tarried on officially, that the right hon. Gentleman settled the suspension of the Constitutional rights of the people of Ireland. The Lord Lieutenant was not in Ireland on that day, and had nothing whatever to do with the matter. He turned up in Ireland the next morning—Saturday morning—but by the time he arrived the Proclamations had been drafted, and it was on the Friday night that the determination to suspend the Constitutional liberties of the people was arrived at. Surety, if the Lord Lieutenant was worth being consulted, and the right hon. Gentleman thought so, he would have taken steps to insure that he would have been in Ireland on that occasion, so that he might have been consulted. I cannot see how he justifies the opinion he has expressed in reference to the Lord Lieutenant with his own act in setting him aside when the Proclamations were drafted; because, as I have shown, the Lord Lieutenant was actually in another country at the time that took place. Surely that fact puts altogether aside the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that the advice of the Lord Lieutenant is of any value whatever. Now, we know what the private secretary does. He writes Lord Londonderry's speeches. As everybody knows, Lord Londonderry sat for years in this House, and he never made a speech. I know, of course, that that is only a negative; but if, when he had no private secretary, he made no speeches, it is only fair to assume now that he has a private secretary, and does make speeches, that the private secretary writes them for him. Mr. Mulhall, the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, is a clever gentleman, who accompanies the Lord Lieutenant on all his tours, and as the Lord Lieutenant does not undertake the responsibility of writing his own speeches himself, they are written for him by Mr. Mulhall. Certainly, they are speeches we do not greatly admire, because they are speeches which are opposed to the views and wishes of the Irish people, and they are generally speeches with a political tinge. But what I maintain is that any person who is appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ought to be intelligent enough to make his own speeches. He ought to be intelligent enough, at any rate, to write his own speeches.

An hon. MEMBER

Oh, dear no; that is not at all necessary.

MR. SEXTON

Then, at any rate, he ought to be intelligent enough to make his speeches without writing them. I know my hon. Friend below the Gangway, who interpolated a remark just now, comes from that part of the country where these speeches are delivered. All I contend is, that if the Lord Lieutenant is incapable of making the speeches he delivers, or any part of them, that the man who does make them for him ought to receive this £20,000 a-year.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I only rise for the purpose of correcting an error into which the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast has fallen with reference to the events which preceded the recent Proclamation. It is perfectly true that, on the afternoon when I arrived at Dublin for the purpose of consulting certain officials, the Lord Lieutenant was not in Ireland. So far the hon. Member is correct. It is also true that the Lord Lieutenant did not arrive until the next morning; but the hon. Member assumes, without any justification whatever, and in contradiction to the real facts of the case, that everything was settled before the Lord Lieutenant's arrival, and that he had nothing to do except to give official sanction to a plan already arranged. That assertion is entirely without foundation. At 12 o'clock on the day of the arrival of the Lord Lieutenant I had an interview with His Excellency, and discussed the matter with him before the sitting of the Privy Council.

MR. SEXTON

Then I will complete my statement. The Lord Lieutenant arrived in Ireland on Saturday morning; he turned up on Saturday afternoon, and attended a meeting of the Privy Council.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That is entirely contrary to the fact.

MR. SEXTON

Did the right hon. Gentleman, before the Proclamations were agreed to, consult the Lord Lieutenant in regard to them?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes, Sir; and I saw His Excellency at the Privy Council, and discussed the question there.

MR. SEXTON

Did the interview between the Lord Lieutenant and the right hon. Gentleman result in any alteration of the arrangements which were made?

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order ! The hon. Member is not in Order in catechizing the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

The Motion before the Committee is to reduce the Vote by £829, the sum allowed to the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and I think we are entitled to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for information to enable us to judge whether the payment of so large a sum is justifiable. We have had a statement that the private secretary has purely decorative work to perform in the secretary's office; but if the private secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is well paid with a salary of £400 a-year, I do not see why the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant should receive more than double that amount. The secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, whose duties are simply connected with the hospitality of the Viceregal Lodge in the Phœnix Park, certainly ought not to receive so enormous a salary as £829 a-year. Knowing how the public expenditure has a tendency to grow, I think it is the duty of Members of this House to look into old-established salaries and customs in Ireland, in order to see to what point they may be able to reduce them; and I am further of opinion that on this side of the House, at all events, we are bound to bring whatever criticism we can to bear upon them, with a view of reducing the public expenditure to a lower level than that at which it now stands. I, for one, intend to vote for a reduction of this salary, and I think it is quite evident that the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant cannot be entitled to more than the sum of £400 a-year, which is paid to the responsible private secretary to the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

Speaking of the onerous duties which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has to discharge, I think the whole performance of the Executive Government of Ireland partakes, in a great measure, of the histrionic character. There is a great deal of play in the whole thing; and just as, on the stage, it is very easy to get a man to act a lord, it is just as hard to get one to act a costermonger. The same thing applies to the Irish Government. As everyone knows, the easiest character to perform in the Government of Ireland is that of the Lord Lieutenant, and, for fear the Lord Lieutenant should not be able to perform the functions he is required to discharge in Ireland, he is provided with a private secretary. There are few hon. Members in this House who know, from personal observation, what is the ordinary routine of the Lord Lieutenant's life in Ireland better than I do; and it certainly seems to me that all the present Lord Lieutenant has ever done in Ireland has been to attend photographic galleries with his lady, to be present at flower shows and cricket matches, and perform other arduous duties of the same kind. No doubt, these things are very well in themselves, and may stimulate the loyalty of the people of Ireland, especially if the Lord Lieutenant happens to be a handsome man. It certainly stimulates the loyalty of the ladies of Ireland; but where, in Ireland, you have thousands and thousands of persons driven out upon the roadside, who are actually starving, as the Representative of West Kerry I can confidentially assure the Committee that it is a very poor consolation to my constituents, who are victims of the action of the Government which the Lord Lieutenant represents to find that they can occasionally get a photograph of the Lord Lieutenant sent down to them. This Vote, however, is not for the Lord Lieutenant, but for the private secretary to Lord Londonderry. I think this is not the first occasion on which we have had a sort of Parliamentary discussion upon private secretaries and their duties. The present Government seem to have a mania for this sort of thing. They have private secretaries everywhere in reference to Ireland. There are private secretaries three deep. The Lord Lieutenant has a private secretary, the Chief Secretary has a private secretary, the Under Secretary has a private secretary, and then there is an Assistant Secretary to the Chief Secretary. We, who know something of Ireland, and its requirements, cannot appreciate the work they do, even if the money they receive in the shape of salaries were not to come out of our own pockets. I do not see why, if the money were to come out of other people's pockets, they should be called upon to pay for work which is really not done. I want to have this fact emphasized. I think the Irish taxpayer has to pay penny for penny, and halfpenny for halfpenny, equally with the British taxpayer for this expenditure

An hon. MEMBER

It is highway robbery.

MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON

Yes, certainly; highway robbery all round, I believe. Now, the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant is located in a certain corner of the Castle yard, which enjoys a peculiar name. Now, "God's acre," we all know, is the good old Saxon phrase: but hon. Members will be astonished to hear that in this case the private secretary's office is situated in what is called the "Devil's Half-Acre," and the "Devil's Half-Acre" is as well known as Nelson's Pillar, or anything of that kind in Dublin. The" phrase "Devil's Half-Acre" represents the idea of the people that the work done there will not bear the light—that it is work which, in reality, shuns the light. I am afraid that as long as the people make use of these odious names, and have such ideas in their minds in regard to the duties and functions of your private secretaries, and the personnel of the Govern- ment of Ireland, the more you stir these matters up the more unsavoury effluvia you will get from them. I am quite satisfied that if these matter were fairly discussed in the light of day, and hon. Members would come in to discuss them with the minds of impartial jurors, a clean sweep would soon be made. If there were really a desire to pass an honest and discriminating judgment upon this Vote, I believe it might be reduced by three-fourths.

MR. MABJORIBANKS (Berwickshire)

May I make an appeal to hon. Members below the Gangway to come to a decision? The line of argument taken up by hon. Members is certainly a singular one, so far as the salary of the Lord Lieutenant's private secretary is concerned. Surely, if the Lord Lieutenant is incapable he ought to have an exceedingly good private secretary, who should be well paid. I have had some experience of the work which a private secretary has to perform, having had a father-in-law and a brother-in-law who were Lord Lieutenants, and I know that the work which a private secretary has to do is not only hard work, but requires an experienced and capable man.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 115: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 436.) [5.35 P.M.]

Original Question again proposed.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £789, being the amount of the salary and allowances connected with the Chapel Royal. Inasmuch as Parliament has destroyed the Established Church in Ireland, I am of opinion that all the appendages connected with that Church should cease to exist, and this is one of them. I believe that it has been of great advantage to Ireland to have got rid of the Established Church, seeing that its existence gave rise not only to political but to religious animosities. I cannot see what defence can be made for continuing this Vote so long as there is no Established Church in Ireland. That is one reason why I shall move the reduction of the Vote. But there is another ground also—namely, that this is a standing insult to the majority of the people of Ireland, who are, as we all know, Roman Catholics. It its opposed to the spirit of the age in which we are living, and is a direct insult to the great body of the Catholic people of Ireland. We have been desirous, as far as we possibly could, to remove all signs of inequality in regard to religious matters in Ireland; and the time has now arrived, I think, when we should get rid of this Vote, which, as I have said, is not only an insult to the Catholic population of Ireland, but an insult to the Christian religion itself. Christian people believe in the carrying out of their principles by voluntary means, and not by compulsion. Any religion which wants to be maintained by compulsion is not worth preserving. Therefore, I believe that this Vote is not only an insult to the Catholics of Ireland, but also an insult to religion itself. Everybody connected with the Vote appears to be paid. The chaplain, the reading clerks, and various other persons, receive salaries; the only persons who are left out in the cold are the congregation. Now, I think that if anybody ought to be paid it is the congregation. Every person connected with this small Establishment receives payment for their services; but, nevertheless, the attendance of worshippers is very small indeed. There is another argument in favour of getting rid of this payment—namely, that these are not days of extravagance. We have been told ad nauseam of the poverty of Ireland, and yet we see this great waste of money. The taxes out of which this item is paid come from the pockets of the people; and I think it is high time that such extravagant expenditure was put a stop to. I therefore beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £789; and I hope the Committee will support me, so that we may, at least, remove one standing grievance which exists between the people of Ireland and of this country.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C—£789, Salaries and Allowances, Chapel—be omitted from the proposed Vote." — (Mr. Handel Cossham.)

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

I rise to support the Motion of the hon. Member for East Bristol. (Mr. Cossham) as an Irishman and a Catholic, and I am extremely glad that it has come from an English Member and a Protestant. I have no objection whatever to it State religion being provided, if it is in consonance with the feelings of the people, or in accordance with the religion of the bulk of the population; but, in the present position of the Irish Church, I think there are practical objections to the continuance of this Vote. There is, in reality, no established staff in connection with the Episcopalian Church in Ireland; but so long as this Chapel Royal is maintained I am afraid it will be held to be a reason why the Prime Minister should not appoint a Catholic Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It would help to do away with one of those troublesome questions which have a tendency to prevent a Ministry from selecting the best man for the post. I should not object to the Lord Lieutenant having a chaplain at a salary of £200 or £300 a-year. But here we have no less than eight or 10 persons with eight or 10 different interests provided for, whom, it would be extremely difficult to disestablish if a Catholic Lord Lieutenant were appointed. No doubt the chaplain may be changed, and some other person appointed; but it would be very difficult to get rid of the whole Establishment. One of the Lord Lieutenants, who was appointed some years ago, was popularly supposed not to have been an Episcopalian; but I do not know what his actual religion was. The existence of this institution did not prevent his appointment; but I am satisfied that it would prevent the appointment of a Catholic Lord Lieutenant. In my opinion, what ought to be done is to get rid of this Establishment, and allow the Lord Lieutenant to have a chaplain of the particular denomination to which he himself belongs. I must say that this item, which appears annually in the Votes, is a relic of the old system of ascendancy in Ireland, and ought to be abolished. At the same time, neither I nor the hon. Member for East Bristol, nor any Irish Member, desires to be at all hard on the clergyman who is now discharging the duties of chaplain. We think that if the office were abolished he would have a clear claim to compensation, although I am not able to say what he ought to get. What I maintain is, that the Government ought not to make any fresh appointments. I presume that they will carry this Vote against us; but, if they do, I do not think they ought to make a new appointment as vacancies in these subordinate offices arise, but they should leave them to die out. It is evident that this Establishment must some day or other, and I believe very shortly, be got rid of. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] My hon. Friend opposite who says "No, no!" is one of those who is determined to maintain all true-blue Conservative principles. I am only expressing my own opinion. I believe that the Establishment will be abolished shortly; and, seeing that the whole bulk of the Irish Members are against keeping it up, I do not think any fresh appointments ought to be made. I trust that the Government will make some reply to the observations which have been made, in order to show that they have the interests of the country, to a certain extent, at heart.

MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid.)

In my opinion, a chaplain should be appointed of whatever form of religion the Lord Lieutenant for the time being may profess. I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, or whoever is responsible for this Vote, that as soon as the gentleman who now holds the appointment has ceased to occupy it, no further appointment should be made by the Government, but that the appointment of chaplain should be allowed to rest with the Lord Lieutenant himself. It appears to me to be an insult to the Lord Lieutenant to say that he must have a chaplain appointed by the Government without giving him any option or choice in the matter. However, there can be no great economy in saving a sum of £700 or £800, and therefore I do not see the advisability of depriving the Lord Lieutenant for the time being of his chaplain; and certainly, if you appoint a chaplain and say that he is to perform certain duties, he ought to be paid for them. My only contention is that the Lord Lieutenant should have the right of appointing his chaplain himself. Why should you deprive the Lord Lieutenant of the right which you give to other Members of the Government of appointing their own officials? If, as soon as the present chaplain ceases to hold the office, the Lord Lieutenant for the time being is given the right of appointing any chaplain he thinks fit, he can then appoint a gentleman of his own religion.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

I recollect on one occasion some years ago going to this Chapel Royal in the lower Castle Yard. I went there out of curiosity. There are a very great number of churches all round. In one direction and about 25 yards off there is a church, and in another direction I found another. The Chapel Royal is also quite close to Christ Church Cathedral, and, in point of fact, it is surrounded by a number of churches in different directions. Added to that is the fact that nobody ever attends the services. The clergyman who was officiating was not the chaplain. As a rule the chaplain is too grand a personage to perform the duties; therefore he gets some minor clergyman to do them. That was the case on the occasion to which I refer, and I can assure the House that upon that occasion there were not 12 people in the church, the majority of whom were, like myself, attracted by curiosity. I mention this fact in order to show that the appointment is a sham; and bearing that fact in mind and knowing that these shams are so transparent, and that the people are calling loudly for the exercise of economy, I, as an Irish Protestant, ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to do away with this last relic of the old ascendancy system. I, as an Irish Protestant, am quite satisfied that the religion to which I have the honour to belong has been vastly and materially improved by doing away with the Established Church. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to get rid of this sham, and do away with this relic of ascendancy, by which he will do a work of service to the whole of the country, and especially to the taxpayers. I cannot agree in one remark which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny). He said this is only a matter of £700 or £800, and therefore it was hardly worth considering; but we all know that pence make shillings and that shillings make pounds, and it is not because an item is small, if it is unjust and extravagant, that it should be allowed to remain. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the name of justice and common sense, to consent to the demand which has been made upon him.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

I shall vote for the reduction of this amount on the ground which has been stated by the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner). At the same time, I should like to vote for the amount which is necessary to maintain the building, because I do not think we should allow the structure itself to be neglected. The hon. Member for Mid Tyrone has referred to the smallness of the Vote; but if we were to adopt his principle, and were to allow any expenditure to be lightly passed without investigation, we must inevitably land ourselves in the end in the extravagance which he has condemned. I rose chiefly to support the Motion of the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. Handel Cossham) on the ground that, having got rid of the Church Establishment in Ireland, it is high time that we should get rid of this last relic of religious inequality in that country. I think it would do good to the Protestant religion itself, of which this Vote is the sole remaining official champion. It would also do good to the Roman Catholic religion, which is undoubtedly insulted by voting this official expenditure in behalf of an alien religion. We got rid 20 years ago of the Protestant Episcopalian Church as the Established Church of Ireland, and I think it is most unfortunate that the Lord Lieutenant's salary was not then increased by some £500 or £600 in order that he might himself appoint a chaplain, if it is desirable for him to have one, so that there should be no longer any official recognition of the Espiscopal Church. This is one of the anomalies in Ireland which will certainly have to be removed at some time or other. On the present occasion I would willingly spare the Committee the trouble of a Division if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would give an assurance that there should be no further appointment when any vacancy arises. Failing an assurance of that kind, I hope that the hon. Member for East Bristol will take a Division upon the Vote, if only for the purpose of entering a protest against any continuance of this principle of religious ascendancy in Ireland.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

I think we are entitled to some reply from the Government, who are bound to justify, if they can, the support of this chaplaincy out of the public purse. A feeling has arisen against paying from that source for the ministration of any particular creed. The last Census Returns showed that the population of Ireland was something over 5,000,000, of whom 640,000 were members of the Irish Church, 4,000,000 Catholics, who, of course, could not agree to pay for the religious services of a creed to which they do not belong, and the rest is made up of Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and other denominations, besides 1,244 persons who refused to say that they belonged to any denomination at all. This chaplain gets £330 a-year, whereas there are many of the clergy of Ireland who receive £10 only, and I know priests who have scarcely £30 a-year to live upon. While that is so, I certainly object to the chaplain to the Lord Lieutenant having £330 a-year. We must recollect that it is not long ago that religious disabilities were done away with in Ireland. I think the hon. Gentleman who spoke a few minutes ago made a suggestion worthy of the consideration of the Government when he said that, instead of allowing this money for the services of a particular creed, it would be better to place the amount which might be proper at the disposal of the Lord Lieutenant, and leave it to his discretion to supply himself with the spiritual aid which he may think necessary for himself. I hope this will be done, so that if a Presbyterian Lord Lieutenant comes in he may have the means of supplying himself with the ministrations of his own Church.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) was Chief Secretary for Ireland, he was opposed to this Vote on the ground that the Lord Lieutenant, who was a Presbyterian, ought to have the appointment of a Presbyterian minister; and that was to some extent admitted by the Predecessor of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne then said that he had had a communication with the Lord Lieutenant, who stated that he had attended the Episcopal Church and had derived benefit from so doing. Upon that, no one objected to the Vote then before the Committee, although I should mention that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne strongly guarded himself against expressing any approval of the Vote. Let me point out a reason why the suggestion of my hon. Friend should be accepted. The Lord Mayor of London holds a dignified and important post. He has his chaplain, who is paid for out of the taxation of the City of London; but the Lord Mayor always appoints a minister of his own Church, and no one has ever objected to the salary. The Sheriffs of London also appoint their own chaplains.

SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)

The hon. and learned Gentleman is not quite correct in one part of his statement. The Sheriffs of London appoint their own chaplains; but the chaplain of the Lord Mayor is always a member of the Church of England.

MR. MOLLOY

I am obliged to the hon. Baronet. I remember the point now. We do not object to the Lord Lieutenant having the liberty of appointment to the fullest extent; but we object now, and have objected for several years, that you should force upon the Lord Lieutenant a minister who is not a member of his own Church. Take your Vote for all that is necessary for Divine Service and we will agree to it for all time; but do not compel the Lord Lieutenant to appoint a minister of a creed different from his own, because otherwise you create a sinecure. The proposal we make is exceedingly reasonable, and it is, in my opinion, one which the Government might at once accept.

SIR ROBERT FOWLER

As the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite probably knows, the next Lord Mayor will be a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I have pointed out that the Lord Mayor must appoint a chaplain who is a clergyman of the Church of England, as he has to preach in the church which the Corporation attends officially. With regard to the Sheriffs, the appointment is entirely a question for themselves.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) () Manchester. E.

As far as I know there has been but one Lord Lieutenant of Ireland who has belonged to any other creed than that of the Church of England, and he quite approved the arrangement made with regard to the chaplain. Looking at this as a purely abstract question, there is no doubt that the chaplain ought to be of the same denomination as the Lord Lieutenant. Although we think that no alteration should be made in the Vote which would in any way interfere with vested interests, I am quite ready to consider the question of altering the form in which the Vote appears on the Paper.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. MOLLOT (King's Co., Birr)

I have an objection, to the Vote for the Insignia of the Order of St. Patrick, on the ground that these honours are conferred on certain noblemen, not for any service done to their countrymen, but simply for their own personal dignity. The noblemen who receive these distinctions are, as a rule, perfectly able to pay for them; but whether they are or not, I think that, if they are conferred for the sole purpose of giving men greater dignity amongst their peers, it is hard that the taxpayers of the country should be asked to pay for them. Now, the amount is very small—it is only £60 in all—but the principle involved is one which, in my opinion, the House ought not to recognize year after year. If any man in the Army or Navy does his country a service, and dignity and honour is attached to his name, this House is always willing to pay for it; but the men I am now considering are, as a rule, unknown in political life and in the Public Service of their country; and I have in my mind two or three cases in which this honour has been conferred upon men who are utterly unknown in this country. What reason is there for the money of the taxpayers being spent on their insignia? I would willingly agree to this in the case of public servants in the Army or Navy; but in the particular cases before us are we not entitled to ask that those honours should be paid for by those who receive them? I think we are, and therefore move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £60.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item E—Incidental Expenses, Office of Arms, £60—be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Molloy.)

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUB) () Manchester, E.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment. The Knights of St. Patrick pay large fees when they have this honour conferred upon them, and have to pay for the insignia also. This Vote is simply for repairs.

MR. HALLEY STEWAET (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

Is the amount actually spent?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

The sum of money is certainly not large, but there is a principle involved here. Those who receive those distinctions are either totally unknown, or else they are persons whose public career is not approved by or agreeable to the people of Ireland, and therefore we object to pay any part of the expense of this Order, and, moreover, I think the Vote is unreasonable, because, if they pay for their insignia in the first instance, why should they not also pay for repairs? I do not know whether these insignia are so ricketty as to require to be repaired year after year; but, however that may be, I should have less objection to this if you did not call the Order by the name of St. Patrick. You have saints in England whose names you could use, and we object that you have not only taken possession of our country, but also of the name of our national saint.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

I also object to this item of the Vote, and to the slovenly way in which the Estimate is drawn. The Vote says that the money is for the Insignia and Banners of St. Patrick; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland says it is for repairs done to them. Either the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is right and the Estimates wrong; and if the former is the case, I say that this is obtaining money under false statistics. I do not see why the Knights of St. Patrick should get from the public purse £60 a-year for emblazoning and repairing their insignia, and certainly, as that is not stated on the Estimate, I shall not allow it to pass without a protest.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

This £60 for insignia passes my comprehension. There are certainly a number of stalls which are allocated to these Knights, and a lot of old banners which are placed over those stalls. One of the great honours in connection with this foolish institution of the Order of St. Patrick is its antiquity. We know that the older the banners of these institutions the more they are revered; and, therefore, what is the use of putting up a new banner on the occasion of an instalment, when an old banner would do as well? It has been mentioned that a portion of the insignia consists of an old helmet and two old swords with gilding on them. I believe that one Knight has been made during the course of the last two or three months, and probably the cost of his two swords and helmet will not appear on this Estimate. I cannot understand how it is that so much money is spent on so little show, and I have no doubt that it is being wasted in some way. As to the Order itself, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) has stated, we hope it will be done away with as soon as possible. I must certainly ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain that item of the banners. Is it for putting up new banners or renovating the old ones? because, to my knowledge, they are not renovated. They are left hanging; it is only on the installation of a new Knight that a new banner is required, and certainly one of those new banners would not cost £60. Under these circumstances, I look for a little further information from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. Balfour) () Manchester, E.

As I understand the matter, it is that a certain amount of money is required from time to time for repairing the insignia and replacing the banners in St. Patrick's Hall, and that is the expense which falls on the Exchequer. On the other hand, every Knight of the Order pays fees to the amount of £300.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

I believe that the item for the Queen's Plates is objectionable to some hon. Members. For my part, I neither rise to propose the reduction nor the increase of the Vote; and if I am asked why I stand up at all, my answer is that I do so for the purpose of suggesting a more sensible and fair distribution of the money. There are 15 Queen's Plates given in Ireland, and I believe they are given practically to a certain class of races which take place within easy reach of Dublin Castle. I do not pretend to know the origin and history of these Plates; but I fancy they were instituted with the idea of encouraging the breeding of horses in Ireland. Ono would, in that case, suppose that the Sovereign who instituted them would encourage the breeding of horses in other parts of the country than that in the vicinity of Dublin. It would be a strong measure if I were to advocate an increase of the Vote; but I speak in the interest of my hon. Friends below the Gangway, and say that there has not been an equal distribution of these Plates. It is in the outlying parts of the country where these things are wanted. I appeal to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet—the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland—(Colonel King-Harman) than whom I suppose there are few in this House who know more about hunting and such matters; I think that all Irish gentlemen and landlords who are such thorough - going pacers in their own way will be in sympathy with me in this matter. We know that in future one of the most useful industries in Ireland will be the breeding of horses, and therefore I say we ought to encourage local races in Ireland, for you may have horses reared like Liberator who, after winning the local and other races, was entered for the Grand National and won that. I trust my suggestion will receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. COX (Clare, E.)

I have great pleasure in supporting the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for West Kerry (Mr. Edward Harrington) on the subject of the Queen's Plates. I quite agree with him in the opinion that those Plates are altogether misapplied; three only go to Ulster, and none to Leinster; and it is because the Plates have not been properly distributed that they have failed altogether to bring about what was originally intended— namely, the improvement of the breed of horses in Ireland. I venture to address a few remarks to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under Secretary for Ireland, and to say that, however much we may differ on political grounds, I believe on the subject of horses we are thoroughly agreed, I think if the Government were to give less to the Curragh, and more to the outlying districts, as suggested by my hon. Friend, it would be a great improvement, and then it would not happen, as it does now, that one or two horses, year after year, take all the Queen's Plates. I have found myself that, as a rule, they are won by walks over, and that they are monopolized by a single horse. For my own part, I should be glad if I could move to increase this Vote; but, as I cannot do that, I would impress on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) that the Irish Government should put themselves in communication with racing men and prominent horse-breeders throughout the length and breadth of the country, so as to discover, if possible, means by which the Queen's Plates may bring about the result they were intended to produce. We know that Ireland cannot compete with Englishmen on the flat, but across country we can hold our own, and I think that, instead of giving the Queen's Plates for flat racing, we should give a few for steeplechases, to be run for over a course of four miles or so, I believe by that you would give a good deal of encouragement to the breeding of horses in Ireland, because it is in steeplechasers and weight - carrying hunters that we can hold our own. This is the suggestion I have to make to the Government, particularly to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland, who takes, I know, a considerable interest in the question of horse-breeding in Ireland; and I trust he will, after consultation with those I have indicated, be able to allocate the Plates in future in a way that will carry out the object with which they were instituted.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN) () Kent, Isle of Thanet

I agree with a good deal that has fallen from hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on this subject, especially the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Clare (Mr. Cox), whom I have seen ride a good race across country. There is one point on which, however, I do not quite agree with the hon. Member. The fact is that when we get a good flat racer in Ireland he generally commands a good price, and in more ways than one I certainly think we can hold our own. I think it is a good suggestion that we should consider the question whether some of the Queen's Plates might not be put to the use which the hon. Member has described. I do not think it would encourage horse-breeding to a large extent, although, at the same time, I believe there is something to be said in favour of it, and that it is a matter which the Government might consider with a view to taking some steps in the direction indicated.

MR. BIGGA.R (Cavan, W.)

I intend to move the reduction of this Vote. I have heard it argued that it is one of those Votes which excites discussion only because it is usually divided against. I intend, if I can find an hon. Member to tell with me, to divide against it tonight, because I think it a thoroughly immoral principle to vote public money for the encouragement of gambling. That is the theory I have always laid down with regard to the Queen's Plates, and it is one which cannot be controverted. Some years ago the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), who himself is a practical horse-racer, protested in the strongest manner against this Vote, and gave pregnant reasons why it should not be continued. It is said to be intended to improve the breed of horses in Ireland, but it does nothing of the sort. It has a bad effect as it is at present applied, and in all probability the result would be the same if it was given for steeplechasing. I believe if you gave the Queen's Plates for steeplechasing in any part of Ireland that the result would be that horses would come from places where there are large numbers to select from, and carry off all the Plates. It is all very well to make them apply to particular districts; but that would shut out all competition, and it would amount to a walk-over for some particular horse in the neighbourhood. Again, the discussion of this Vote always takes up a great deal of time when the Estimates are in Committee; and for that reason, also, I think the Government would do well to abolish it. It always gives rise to half-an-hour's discussion, and half-an-hour represents the tenth part of a Sitting; and I think it is hard that the Committee spend that time every year in protesting against a custom which does no good, while it certainly does encourage blacklegs and gambling. This has been the immemorial result of horse racing. For my own part, I never sub-scribe to the local horserace funds; my custom being to send a civil refusal in reply to all applications and circulars, which I put into the waste-paper basket. I practise what I preach; and as I do not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing, if the Government will undertake to withdraw the Estimate next year, I will not carry my Motion to a Division; but, if not, I shall certainly take that course.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item F—for Queen's Plates—be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Biggar.)

COLONAL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

The hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) has made an amusing speech; but while he has boon delivering it I have been exercising my mind to discover what means of locomotion he will leave us in Ireland when he has carried out all his views on that subject. A few days ago he objected to railways and tramways, and now he objects to our encouraging the breeding of horses. If the breed of horses is destroyed we should have to use donkey carts, which in course of time my hon. Friend will be objecting to if his Amendment is carried. I hope, however, he will take a more sensible course than that which he seems bent upon. It is an unfortunate thing that the Vote for the Queen's Plates for Ireland, unlike the English Plates, which are given out of the Queen's Purse, come on for discussion on these Votes, because the effect of that is that discussion is raised not on the main, but on a side question. The effect of giving this money in the case of Ireland is quite different from its effect in England, where the Queen's Plates are a mere blot on account of the enormous amount of added money. On the other hand, I believe that in Ireland this money is just enough to turn the scale. In my opinion, the encouragement of horse-breeding is nearly as important from a military point of view as the procuring of recruits; and if you take away this £1,500 a year—as I am informed by men well acquainted with the subject—we shall lose the whole of our breed of racers in Ireland. I think it is a great pity that Ireland is shut out from English races. The country has a great many natural advantages in its soil for the breeding and training of horses in the winter; and it would, in my opinion, be of great advantage if the people of Ireland were enabled to enter into the English system of racing, which has made this country famous throughout the world. But I would warn the right hon. and gallant Gentle- man the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) against taking advice, on the subject of the local distribution of plates, too much from racing men. These races give an immense amount of amusement to the people in Ireland—who, there is no doubt, are very fond of them—and it would be of much greater advantage that they should be run at places like Galway, for instance, than at the Curragh. There are not many of the people of the country who go to the Curragh meetings, as will be seen if you deduct the men from the Camp and those who make racing a profession; and therefore I say you will be giving the people a much greater amount of amusement by distributing the Plates over other districts. I consider that under the present arrangement it is a great shame that only one Plate should be given to Con-naught instead of three, which would be a much fairer apportionment. But there is a special blot on the system of distributing the Queen's Plates, which, instead of being dealt with by the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland—as I should be quite willing for them to be—are allocated, I believe, by an officer of Her Majesty's Household.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

They are allocated by the Master of the Horse in Ireland.

COLONEL NOLAN

Then the system has been changed. The difference is merely one of date. I am, however, glad that the Government have had the inconvenience of the old system brought to their notice, and will conclude my remarks by expressing a hope that the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) will not divide the Committee on his Motion, and that the Vote for this small sum of money will be agreed to.

MR. PROVAND (Glasgow, Blackfriars, &c.)

I think this question affects the whole country. Here is the sum of £1,500 or £1,600 coming annually out of the pockets of the taxpayers, and handed over to be raced for as Queen's Plates in Ireland. It is so much money worse than wasted; and, therefore, these are grants which I think ought not to be continued. It is said that this was originally intended for the purpose of promoting the breed of horses in Ireland; but looking at the fact that it does nothing of the kind, and that many of the horses that win these Plates come from England, I think the system should be abolished. In Australia, New Zealand, India, China, Japan, and the United. States, where horse-racing flourishes, not one sixpence of public money goes to support horse-racing. It is in this country alone that the public money is applied to such a purpose. I therefore intend to vote with the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar), if the hon. Gentleman and myself go into the Lobby alone. I do not see that there is any great advantage to a country if it does succeed in getting a horse to run a race in a quarter of a second less than it has been run in before. The chief requirement in Ireland is horses for everyday use; and, as this Vote in no way tends to supply this want, I shall vote with the hon. Member for West Cavan.

MR. HERMON-HODGE (Lancashire, Accrington)

I wish to assure hon. Members opposite that they have the sympathy of Members on these Benches in their wish for the better distribution of the Queen's Plates in Ireland. I cannot understand how any Member can get up and advocate a course so injurious and so calculated to hamper the breed of horses in that country as that of abolishing these Plates. When a horse like "Bendigo" is produced in Ireland, and comes over here and wins a good race, others of the same kind are sought for immediately, and thousands of pounds are brought into the country in consequence; and that has occurred over and over again. I will not detain the Committee longer than to express a hope that there will be an inquiry into the manner of the distribution of this money before next year.

MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)

I would appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar), with whom on all questions of economy I am happy to vote, to reconsider his decision on this subject, because, as far as this money is concerned, we ought not to have the slightest objection to its expenditure in Ireland; and if the system is at present defective, there is no reason why it should not be amended. I object to 10 of the Queen's Plates being run for at the Curragh, where only two or three horses ran, and carry off the whole of them. The effect of the present system is that the whole of the benefit of the Plates goes to two or three persons who train horses for the special purpose, while there is not the slightest advantage to the class of persons generally who use horses in Ireland. I think it would be very much better if the money we are now asked for were given for stud-horses instead of for race-horses. Then, again, the money is given for races on the flat, whereas the only branch of racing in which Irish horses excel is steeple-chasing and across-country work. I suggest, then, that the money should be given for the purpose I have indicated, because, by that means, it would do 10 times as much good as is done by handing it over to blacklegs and sharpers who frequent the races in Ireland.

MR. HARRIS (Galway, E.)

I think, if this money is granted to Ireland at all, it should be given in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny), for, as the money is applied now, it is of no use whatever to Ireland, where everything that is patronized by Royalty goes to the wall. I rememember there used to be in Ireland a good breed of hunters — indeed, there was nothing better of its kind than the old bloodhunter—but these, like the Irish people, have been exterminated. I shall certainly support the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar) on the Division which he has announced his intention of taking, and I regret that the hon. Member for Northampton is not present, with whom I voted on a former occasion against this charge. I think sport has done nothing for Ireland except impoverish the landlords, who, in turn, take it out of the tenants.

MR. BIGGAR

I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) to say whether there is not a stringent law against betting on horses? That is a criminal offence, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is going to give the countenance of the Government to a system which encourages gambling in Ireland?

THE FIEST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) () Strand, Westminster

I see no necessity for gambling in connection with horse-racing.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 116: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 437.) [8 P.M.]

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £25,967, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

Sir, this Vote is one upon which many questions have always been raised; and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will be surprised that on the present occasion it should lead to some considerable discussion. We have to complain—I think it will be admitted with some reason—of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant discharges his duties. The right hon. Gentleman has set up an altogether novel practice. I am not prepared to deny that he has had a very great burden thrown upon him. I will go further, and say he assumed his Office during one of the most critical periods of the history of the country. I do not think that he himself realizes the burden which is thrown upon his shoulders as much as he might feel it, because, however intensely it may press upon him, I have never disguised from myself that he fails to realize the extraordinary position of Ireland at the present time. Now, that is speaking generally; but, speaking departmentally, what is the action of the right hon. Gentleman? When the right hon. Gentleman came into Office last March, he succeeded a Gentleman of very great experience in the management of Irish affairs—Sir Michael Hicks-Beach — who had held the Office of Chief Secretary from 1874 to 1876–7, and who, after having been Leader of the House, on the suggestion, apparently, of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), again took the Office of Chief Secretary. The policy of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, as we understood it in Ireland, was to endeavour by every means in his power to prevent evictions; and I must say that the term of Office of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach—[Cries of "Order, order!"] I never personally raised my voice against his method of conducting Irish Business. I can conceive Sir Michael Hicks-Beach—[Cries of " Order, order! "] I am perfectly in Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order !

MR. T. M. HEALY

I understand, Mr. Courtney, it is always allowable, under circumstances of this kind, to speak of a Gentleman by name. It was the course adopted in reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), when he was not present. It was then that the precedent was established of speaking of hon. Gentlemen who were absent from the House for any considerable length of time by name. If there is any objection—

THE CHAIRMAN

I am not aware of any such precedent; it is not within my memory. Certainly, it is quits foreign to the practice of the House to speak of Members of the House byname.

MR. T. M. HEALY

My hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) was never spoken of at that time in any other way than by name. I am strictly conforming to precedent. If anyone will refer to the reports of the debates, he will find in them the names of Mr. Parnell, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. J. Dillon, Mr. Sexton, and of other hon. Gentlemen absent from the House for along period. The practice was to speak of such hon. Gentlemen as I am speaking of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach); but I will not press the point further. I was saying that, so far as I was concerned, I never felt able to criticize the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman with any great stringency. When the right hon. Gentleman departed from Office, owing to a difficulty with the Cabinet upon the question of judicial rents, he was able to put forward, a very deplorable ground, the ground of some unfortunate disorder or affliction, and no one more than I regret such a misfortune happening to a frank and loyal opponent. We have had experience, therefore, of that right hon. Gentleman during my short time in the House; we have had experience of the right hon. Gentleman the present Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke) as Chief Secretary; we have had experience, too, in the Office of Chief Secretary, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgoton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), and before then we had experience of the late Mr. Forster. That is to say, that in the course of seven years we have had something like six or seven different Chief Secretaries for Ireland, and the present incumbent of the Office (Mr. A. J. Balfour) is the first who has conducted Irish affairs in the way he has done. During his tenure in Office he has only gone over to Ireland two or three times, and then only for a very brief period. He has, therefore, been at the mercy of gentlemen at the Irish Office in London. He has had no previous experience of Ireland, so far as I know. He is a Scottish landlord, and before he was told off to administer Irish affairs he was the Secretary for Scotland. If an Irishman were appointed Secretary for Scotland, what a farce it would be; would not the thing be ridiculous, and would not Scotch Members on both sides of the House cry out at the atrocity of appointing a Member, who knew nothing whatever about Scotland, to deal with Scottish affairs? Yet Scotland is a country where landlord and tenant meet together, and where the laws are fairly administered. Suppose an Irishman, without any experience of England, were appointed Homo Secretary, what at an outcry there would be. Besides other qualifications, the right hon. Gentleman has that of being the nephew of his uncle—that is thought sufficient ground for promoting him to the Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman makes a boast of his ignorance, and on the ground of his ignorance claims consideration at our hands. I think that, so far as that is concerned, the right hon. Gentleman has no claim whatever for consideration at our hands. If he is an ignorant man — speaking so far as Ireland is concerned — having no acquaintance with the country, he should have been the last man to have adopted the moans of dealing with Irish affairs that he has adopted. Now, what has he done? We know that, although much time is necessarily consumed in the consideration of Irish affairs to what is considered the exclusion of English and Scotch affairs, the whole Session would not be too long to devote every year to Irish matters. In fact, the only opportunity we have of raising questions in regard to canals, bridges, drainage, piers and harbours, or the actions of the police, and soldiers, and landlords, is by Question. All this Session we have been shut out from raising affairs except by Question. We raised them, of course, in the debates as they arose on the Coercion Bill and the Land Bill; but we are obliged to deal with such affairs at such times as suits the Irish Government; therefore, Sir, the great outlet and safety-valve in this House for Irish Members has hitherto been Questions. Now, if there is anything calculated to educate even the most ignorant man upon Irish affairs, it is the perusal of the Questions put from day to day to Ministers. What has been the action of the right hon. Gentleman? I do not wish to say anything personally offensive to the right hon. Gentleman; but I must say that his desertion of his post appears to me to wear exactly the same aspect as if a sentry were to throw down his gun and go to his bed at a time when he ought to be on duty. The right hon. Gentleman has taken a course which no other Irish Secretary has ever taken; and let me point out one great advantage he has. He is a young man; he is physically strong; and I may say, as a young man myself, he has plenty of audacity. That being so, he has a great advantage over gentlemen like the late Mr. Forster, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridge-ton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). What has been his course of action? He has appointed—it was apparently his selection —tho right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) as his alter ego. We know there were many aspirants to the post; we know that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) thought he was well in the running. I do not know what objections there were to him; he is a Scotchman, and therefore I should have thought he fulfilled all the conditions. Then, there were hon. Gentlemen opposite who aspired to the pest. There was the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson); he is a Militia Orangeman; and, therefore, I should have said he had a large claim upon the Government in reference to the appointment. But what did the Government do? On the initiative of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland they appointed to deal with Irish affairs the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman). In the first instance, let mo point out that we are now left entirely at the discretion of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, or, if we are not left at his discretion, we are left at the discretion of the clerks who write out the replies which he gives to us. Is that a mode of dealing with Irish questions to be tolerated? We are told that Ireland is the problem of British statesmen; but fancy the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet working out such a problem when he can hardly work out a sum in proportion! Fancy the great issues in regard to Ireland being entrusted to a gentleman of the calibre of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet, who began his career, apparently, by being sentenced to three or four months' imprisonment for rioting and assaulting the police in Cremorne Gardens! This is the Government which boasts of its adhesion to law and order, and its first act upon the initiative of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is to appoint a released convict — [Cries of "Order, order!"] That is what he is.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. T. M. HEALY

If you, Mr. Courtney, can suggest what will be a proper inclusive term to apply to a man who has been sent to the treadmill for assault, I am prepared to adopt such Parliamentary description. It is all very well to tell people like the Irish people to have regard for law and order—indeed, you have just passed a Bill to make punishable assaults on police and bailiffs; but I should like to know where the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have been if the Crimes Act had been in force in his young days? Last night we had an exhibition of the spirit in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman deals with Irish affairs. Reference was made to two men named Weldon and McHugh, who were charged with an offence, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman told a very interesting anecdote concerning the man Weldon. He got up at that Table and admitted that he went to Mr. Forster and told him that if he did not get Weldon out of the country he would shoot Weldon. Look how that comes out in the English papers. It was suppressed in The Times—he must have sent word to get it knocked out of the report—at any rate, it does not appear in The Times this morning. The English public have thus been deprived of a little piece of evidence showing what manner of man the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is. But the question will be brought up, I imagine; when we address the Irish people in the coming winter we shall certainly refer to this interesting historical observation of the present Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman told Mr. Forster that if Weldon was not got out of the country, the first time he met him he would shoot him. Such is the calibre and mental condition of the Gentleman you have appointed to deal with Irish affairs.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order ! I am bound to interfere, as I was in the Chair when the observation was made, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not at present here to reply for himself. The version of the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman given by the hon. and learned Member may be quite correct; but it does not at all correspond with what I heard.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Of course, if you say that, Sir, I am quite willing to accept your statement. I observe the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not here; but, of course, he is within call, and it is the duty of the Government to send for him. This is a serious matter, and will be raised, I can assure the Government, in Ireland in season and out of season. When we are liable to be imprisoned for six months or three months for offences under the Crimes Act just as your Resident Magistrates may order, we shall not forget in our speeches to point out the spirit of the remark of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. As I heard the remark the right hon. and gallant Gentleman told Mr. Forster that Weldon was about to shoot him, and that if he saw Weldon he would have the first shot. Whatever the remark was, it is excluded from The Times, and The Times, which is worked in concert with the Government in these matters, has deprived us from reading what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said; and as Hansard's reports are submitted to Members before publication, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will, no doubt, score out the particular passage of his speech to which I have referred. I did not look in the other London papers to see if the statement was recorded; but, if not, and if it is excluded from Hansard, we have only our memories to rely upon. Perhaps later on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us what he really did say. At any rate, this is the spirit of the Irish landlord whom you have employed to do duty for the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is a mere sham. So far as policy is concerned, he is a mere shadow; he does not exist. Because he knows nothing about Ireland he is bound to take his views from his right hon. and gallant Colleague (Colonel King-Harman), whom if the Government did not believe to be a suitable man they would not have appointed. No more offensive appointment has ever been made. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, apart from his Cremorne days, was hand and glove—perhaps the Government will send for him unless he is dining—the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was hand and glove with all the Fenians of Roscommon and Longford. He stood for Longford and for the City of Dublin as a Home Ruler; he was Secretary of the Home Rule Conference of 1883, and he never denied that his first election address to the constituency he stood for was written by Mr. Patrick Egan, the Secretary of the Irish Land League. He was also, I believe, an old chum of Mr. P. J. Sheridan, and used him during several election campaigns. This is the Gentleman who is appointed by the Government to stand between us and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. Now, take the mere departmental effect of this appointment. The other day a tenant on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's estate in the County of Roscommon was prosecuted for trespass. He had cut turf, and a day or two ago I asked if it was true that the turf was cut, that a summons for trespass was issued against the tenant, and that this summons was tried before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's agent, and the agent of another local landlord. These men fined the man, although the question of title was raised. The case was carried up to the Queen's Bench, where the order was quashed; but the Court would not allow the tenant costs, so that the result was that, although the Queen's Bench quashed the illegal order of the magistrate, the tenant was put to upwards of £30 costs. I put a Question on the subject to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who answered it. Of course, it would not have been decent for the Question to be answered by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; but what hope had of getting a proper answer when the landlord incriminated had a hand in the concoction or preparation of the answer? The other day I had a complaint to make of a bailiff on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's estate in Longford. This man went round with a revolver to intimidate the wife of an evicted tenant. I did not put a Question about the matter—what was the good of doing so? What was the use of putting a Question about the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and getting an answer from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself? That would have been a very pretty state of things. The grievances and hardships of our country can only be brought home to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary by the Questions we address to him, and yet the right hon. Gentleman very rarely allows them to impinge on his mind. The Questions are sent over to Dublin, and the answers to them are drawn up by clerks. The answers were read out at the Table of the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and his Assistant (Colonel King-Harman). This, I say, is a state of things in this House, so far as Ireland is concerned, which is revolutionary. No other Minister acts in the way the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary acts. The right hon. Gentleman in this way shows his disdain for the Irish people, to do which his Relative the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Gerald I Balfour) says he took the Office of Chief Secretary.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

He did not say so.

MR. T. M. HEALY

We say he did.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Mr. Courtney, I rise to Order. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Gerald Balfour) had distinctly denied in the House that he ever made such a statement. I beg to ask you, Sir, whether it is in Order to repeat the accusation in the absence of the hon. Gentleman?

THE CHAIRMAN

Of course, if the hon. Member for Central Leeds has distinctly denied that he made such a statement, the hon. and learned Member for North Longford is not in Order in repeating it.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I can only say that a Member of this House informed me that he heard the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Gerald Balfour) make the statement that his brother accepted the Office of Irish Secretary, although he despised the Irish soul.

THE CHAIRMAN

That observation having been denied, I cannot justify the hon. and learned Member in repeating the statement,

MR. T. M. HEALY

Very well, Mr. Courtney. The Government have, however, adopted the policy of putting forward the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet as their mouthpiece in this House. Now, we are to have during the autumn and Recess a time of extraordinary difficulty and liveliness. In connection with the suppression of the National League the tenantry will call meetings to consider what action should be taken. Who will be the Adviser of the Government as to the suppression of these meetings? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet—a gentleman who went to the North of Ireland, and declared that the National League was a disloyal and illegal organization, and that its meetings should not be allowed; a gentleman who was at the head of the Orange meeting at Dungannon, which would have led to a breach of the peace only for an overwhelming force of cavalry and infantry being there; a gentleman who went there as a magistrate, forsooth, to prevent the right of public meeting being exercised; a member of the Orange organization ! I confess I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is in the least bigoted —he does not care whether a man is a Catholic or Protestant. I have never noticed that he has any of that Orange virus which is so conspicuous in others; he lives amongst Catholic people, and he knows them well. He is a political Orangeman, and, as such, he is a member of a sworn secret society. He is so in violation of all the declarations of previous Governments, beginning with 1834, when Regulations were passed precluding any member of a sworn secret society, working by signs and symbols, from holding Office under Her Majesty. Although I may be told that the advice of Lord Napier was taken as to the reconstitution of the Orange Society, and although the excuse has been made in the House that since its reconstitution the society has been placed on a basis of legality, I can only say that long subsequent to that—about 1854, when Lord Palmerston was in Office — Maziere O'Brady, then Chancellor of Ireland, wrote and addressed a Circular to the Lords Lieutenants of counties in which he directed that no member of the Orange Society should be allowed to retain the Commission of the Peace. This was long after the Orange organization had been placed on a so-called basis of legality by its reconstitution. If it is right to be a member of a landlords' secret society, why should it not be right to be a member of a tenants' secret society? If it is right for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to take the oath of Orangeism and be indoctrinated in the mystic passwords and other tomfoolery Orangemen indulge in in order to safeguard the secrets of their Order, why should not Ribbonmen be allowed to take oaths and have their secret signs and passwords? The landlords have their rents to protect; but the Ribbonmen have their wives and families to protect. If I had to join a secret society I would much sooner join the Ribbonmen than the Orangemen. So far as the oath-bound nature of the societies go they are on a parity; but, so far from there being any parity between them as to bloodshed, for every murder the Ribbonmen have committed the Orangemen have committed 500. Wherever the Orange Society has gone its path has been stained with the blood of innocent men. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now representing the Irish. Government on the Treasury Bench, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary having gone away, being unequal to the task. I think that when Lord Salisbury was appointing an Irish Secretary it would have been more frank in him to have appointed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I would far rather have to deal with him directly than through — as it were — a glass darkly, as we have at present. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has the instincts of an Irishman; that he desires, as far as he can, to further the material prosperity of Ireland so long as it does not interfere with landlordism. But at present the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is neither one thing nor the other; he is neither Irish Secretary nor the Under Secretary. He does not even draw a salary; and I fail to see what advantage there is in the present system. Two men are not wanted; besides, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has never been allowed to intervene in debate since a famous debate we had in this House. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now present, it is only fair I should repeat what I have said concerning him. I said that as I understood his remark about the man Weldon it was this— that he had gone to Mr. Forster and told him that he believed Weldon meant to shoot him, but that if he met Weldon he would shoot Weldon. That is the statement I understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to make. I went on to point out that nothing whatever in regard to Weldon appears in the report of the remarks of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in The Times of this morning, from which I draw the inference that as The Times was the Government paper the remark was suppressed at the instigation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will have an opportunity of correcting that observation if he chooses to do so; he will be able to explain himself how the matter stands. I have expressed, as well as I can, my objection to the system of government in Ireland carried on by what O'Connell called "a shave-beggar principle." The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary relegates most important duties to a member of a sworn secret society. I have had the society's rules in my hand, and have seen how John So-and-so was expelled for marrying a Papist. This society has been responsible for much of the turmoil and bloodshed which has occurred in Ireland—in Ulster, at any rate, for the last 100 years; and. I think it would be franker on the part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw from that society. The Irish people would certainly consider it a mark of respect — I do not say to their prejudices, but to their feelings—if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman were to withdraw from the Orange Society. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must remember that a great many people in Ireland have not forgotten his own Home Rule days, and that there are some people in Ireland who still think he is a Home Ruler. Whether he is a Home Ruler or not, I think the Irish people would appreciate his action if he were to withdraw from, an oath-bound society. You are about to suppress the only Constitutional organization the Irish people have. Naturally, the Irish people will not allow themselves to go undefended. If they cannot meet openly they will meet in secret. If they cannot defend their farms by public organization and by Constitutional methods they will defend them anyhow. Human nature being what it is, if the landlords put the pressure of what is called law on the people, the people will endeavour to meet and counteract them by the only means open to them. I believe it to be just as legitimate for the people to adopt their methods of warfare as it is for the Government to adopt theirs. You adopt your methods, and you are able to get them sanctioned by Act of Parliament. We do not regard Acts of Parliament, passed as they are in this House by means I will not characterize, passed by a Parliament whoso decree we have never respected and never shall. That being so, I invite the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to place himself, to some extent, within the pale of decency by forsaking this secret society to which he belongs, which has the stain of murder upon it. In the opinion of most of the Irish people the Orange Society is an organization of aggression, of bigotry, of violence, and of destruction; and, no matter how innocent his connection may be with it, there is no excuse for him continuing his membership. His ap- pointment was au outrage upon the Irish, people. It was the appointment of a renegade to a position of power over the people; it was the appointment of a landlord to an arbitrary position over the tenants; it was the appointment of a rack-renter, a man whose rents have been reduced 20, 30, 40, and, I believe, in some cases 50 per cent, over people whose main struggle has been a struggle for fair rent; it was the appointment of a man who, if you please, was to carry out law and order, seeing that he himself had been convicted under shameful and deplorable circumstances in connection with a Cremorne riot many years ago. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman could atone to some extent by his action in Office for his appointment; but that does not relieve the Government from the disgrace of having appointed him. I say that his appointment was a deplorable appointment. He may improve his position by his action in this House. I have been happy to recognize that recently he has abated to some extent the offensiveness with which he replied to the most harmless Questions addressed to him from this side of the House. The position of a Minister is not necessarily the position of a combatant. A Minister is a Minister for the whole people and not for a particular Party, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman occasionally understands his Office. At first he made himself the Minister of the Orange faction; but he is now beginning to recognize the fact that he is the Minister of the people at large. But whether he does recognize that fact or not it does not relieve the Government from the disgrace and stigma of the appointment, nor does it relieve the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland of a want of courage and want of heart which induced him to appoint the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to his present position. It is the business of the Irish Secretary to stand his ground. You can read every day in The Times the false and wretched saying that the Irish are a bad people to run away from. I do not know what that proverb means, except it means a sneer at a people who, in addition to robbing, you find it easy to vilify. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman the Irish Secretary runs away. I do not think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland would run away from anybody. At all events, he would not run away from Weldon, who was prepared to shoot him. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has installed in his place a Gentleman wholly objectionable to us, a Gentleman whoso relations with his tenants are of a most deplorable kind, and who frankly confessed before the Land Commissioners two years ago that no landlord in Ireland was on worse terms with his tenants than he was. That I think was a deplorable statement, and that statement, coupled with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement concerning the man Weldon, will be dealt with in the coming autumn. We shall ask the Irish people to have regard to the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and to say that a Government so constituted cannot merit their respect, and as one which ought not to be allowed to remain a day in existence, having power over the lives and liberties of any civilized people.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETAEY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN) () Kent, Isle of Thanet

I have no wish to detain the Committee long; I was brought in from my dinner, hearing that the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. T. M. Healy) had, with his usual courtesy, taken the opportunity of my absence to make a violent attack upon me.

MR. T. M. HEALY

May I ask if that observation is in Order? I did not take the opportunity of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's absence. I was compelled to get up, because the Vote was called on. Had it been an hour earlier or au hour later I should have got up had the right hon. and gallant Gentleman been Jupiter or Saturn.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order ! I feel bound to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should be sent for.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

I am very glad the hon. and learned Gentleman did suggest I should be sent for. I am sorry I was not here to hear all the remarks of the hon. and learned Member; but I do not know whether the accusations of the hon. and learned Member are entirely in accordance with the instincts of an Irishman and the decencies of debate. The Committee can form its own opinion upon that. The first point upon which I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman thought fit to censure my conduct was with regard to a matter which occurred 27 years ago. I do not in the least mean to deny that. I did get into a row 27 years ago; but I dare say many of us were much more foolish 27 years ago than we are at present. I do not believe that any man is very much the worse for having got into a boyish scrape. There was nothing disgraceful or cowardly in it, and if I got into a scrape at all it was through defending my friends. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the statement I made yesterday. I understand that the hon. and learned Member said that I stated yesterday that I went to Mr. Forster and told him if Weldon was not removed I would shoot him. What I intended to state, and believe I stated, was that Mr. Forster had told me that he had information that Weldon was employed with the intention of shooting me. I told Mr. Forster that, that being the case, if I met Weldon on the road I would shoot him—that I would have the first shot. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) intimated yesterday that I ought to have let Weldon have first shot. Do you think I am such a fool as that? Mr. Forster wanted to surround me with police, and he cautioned me not to go home. Do you think I was going to be cur enough even to slink away or let myself be surrounded and dogged about by police? Do you think I was fool enough to let a man I knew have the first shot at me? Not a bit of it. I was not fool enough to be caught, and I am not now. The hon. and learned Member then went to a matter which touches me very much more, which touches my honour and what reputation I have to lose. In consequence of the remarks not having appeared in The Times—probably they were not uttered high enough to be heard in the Gallery—he had the effrontery to insinuate I had some communication with the reporters, and had got them to suppress the words which I had uttered. I throw that back in the hon. and learned Gentleman's face with scorn. It was an unwarrantable, calumnious, and abominable insinuation to make.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is, no doubt, speaking under great provocation; but I must ask him to observe the rules of language in this House.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

Mr. Courtney, I bow to your decision. I am sorry I was not here when these remarks were made. I should have claimed your protection from such remarks if I had been. But, as I was not protected in my absence, I thought I might have been allowed to express some natural indignation at an accusation which deeply touches my honour and deeply affects my feelings. I consider that any hon. Member of this House who would utter words, and who would then send up or in any way communicate with the reporters in order to have those words suppressed, would be a mean and dastardly coward; and a man who brings an accusation of mean and dastardly conduct against an hon. Member of this House I think is—I am sorry to say, Sir, I cannot use the language which I think I might use.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Go on.

COLONEL KING-HAEMAN

Well, I think that is the chief point I have to object to. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman also accused me, I understand, of having been a friend of a murderer—P. J. Sheridan. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in my opinion, knows perfectly well that that statement is not true.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order ! I must point out that it is a violation of the Rules of this House to say that any hon. Member makes a statement that he knows to be not true. The right hon. and gallant Member must withdraw.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

I withdraw it; but I think the hon. and learned Gentleman, before making such an accusation as that, should have taken pains to ascertain whether it was true. Now, I will tell the Committee plainly the entire nature of my acquaintance with P. J. Sheridan. I saw him twice in my life, and I had a conversation with him once. The first time I ever saw him was when, in 1877, I canvassed the County Sligo.

MR. T. M. HEALY

He canvassed for you.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

He did not. What he may have done without my knowledge I cannot tell; but he never canvassed for me with my ap- proval. I saw him next in the town of Tubbercurry, where I canvassed every house. There were two public-houses in the town, in each of which a certain number of men were; and in the ordinary course of the canvass I visited Sheridan's house, and spoke to him and his wife and the voters there assembled. I had no more to do with him than I had with the other publican at the end of the town. My next acquaintance with Mr. Sheridan was when I contested County Sligo a second time, and when I was opposed and defeated by the hon. Gentleman who now represents West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). In the middle of my canvass, and when matters were pressing, and it became apparent to me that the probability was that I should be defeated, a letter was brought to me at my hotel in Sligo, signed by P. J. Sheridan, offering that if a certain sum of money was paid to him he would come forward as a Nationalist, and so split that interest. I handed the letter to my brother, who was in the room, and said that I had been told the fellow was a rascal; but I did not think he was such a scoundrel as this. I threw the letter in the fire, and from that time to this I have had neither part, parcel, or lot with P. J. Sheridan, good, bad, or indifferent. Now, I hope the hon. and learned Member will not again repeat the calumnious statements he has made to-night. The hon. and learned Gentleman was then, in my presence, very witty in his remarks about my attendance at the Dungannon meeting.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I also said, if you wish to know, that Patrick Egan had written your address.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

I was not aware of that; and I am very glad to have the opportunity of saying that the statement is absolutely unfounded, and as false as the other statements the hon. and learned Gentleman has made.

MR. T. M. HEALY

You admitted it in your County Dublin canvass.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

I did nothing of the kind.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order ! I have told the hon. and learned Gentleman already that it is contrary to the Rules of the House to contradict an hon. Member in this way—to say that another hon. Member is making a statement which is untrue.

MR. T. M. HEALY

He confessed it in his County Dublin canvass.

THE CHAIRMAN

It is impossible to enter into the question of justification —it is a violation of the Rules of this House. I must call upon the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Very well, Sir.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has withdrawn the accusation?

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. and learned Member withdraw?

MR. T. M. HEALY

I am perfectly willing to withdraw any statement which is incorrect; but it is incorrect—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate exactly what I have said. I have told him that the observation is irregular, and contrary to the Rules of the House. I enter into no question of its correctness or otherwise.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

Well, Sir, independently of what I think of Patrick Egan—whose character I will not dwell upon in his absence—let me say I do not claim to be a man of great literary capacity, or of any particular talent; but I do claim to be able to write an ordinary election address without seeking the assistance of a miller's clerk.

MR. D. SULLIVAN (Westmeath, S.)

Patrick Egan corrected the proof of your address, and I was standing by when he did it.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order ! I must ask the hon. Member to apologize for that interruption.

MR. D. SULLIVAN

Very well, Sir.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must not apologize in that perfunctory fashion. It is a violation of the Rules of the House, which cannot be permitted; and I call upon him to withdraw.

MR. D. SULLIVAN

Very well, Sir; I do so.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

Mr. Courtney, I was speaking of the hon. and learned Gentleman's reference as regarded the Dungannon meeting. Well, I did go to the meeting. I did walk at the head of a body of loyal men into Dungannon, and I made a speech there, and when my speech was over I walked into the square; and the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy), if he had any sense of decency—I beg pardon—

MR. T. M. HEALY

Go on.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

If he had any sense of gratitude, I do not think he would have spoken about me at Dungannon, for if I had not been at Dungannon on that occasion I very much question whether the hon. and learned Member would have been here now. While the meeting was going on, the hon. and learned Member walked out of his hotel towards the post office. He was recognized about three-quarters of the way across by some of the men in the outskirts of the crowd, and they made a rush for him—

MR. T. M. HEALY

They were told from the platform to do it.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

I do not blame the hon. and learned Member for it; bat he made a rush —

MR. T. M. HEALY

I did nothing of the kind.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

Well, the hon. and learned Member proceeded to the post office, and he was very nearly being caught, and I got hold of two men who were behind him by their necks, and pulled them back. I said—"For God's sake, do not touch him." They were strangers to me, and they turned on me in a savage manner, believing, I suppose, I was a friend of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I would not have seen him or anyone else ill-used by a body of men equal to 10 to one. I did my best to prevent the hon. and learned Gentleman from being maltreated, and I would do the same again under similar circumstances. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman must know perfectly well—as the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) must know—that when he was at the Portrush Station he was in considerable danger, and that his assailants were kept off by one of the leading Orangemen of the place. I certainly thought that I should have mot with some gratitude for what I did at Dungannon. The hon. and learned Member taunts me about Home Rule. The hon. and learned Member must be perfectly aware that I spoke my sentiments as boldly and as plainly then as I do now. I took up the cry of Home Rule when it was not a popular cry. I stood by it as long as I could. I stood by it in good and evil repute, and as long as I thought there was a possibility of Ireland being raised from its then condition by the Home Rule as laid down by the late Mr. Butt. But when I found the cause was swamped by men who killed it, and have destroyed the good name of Irish Nationality, I abandoned the cause. I was not ashamed of my principles. Neither loss of friends, loss of money, nor loss of reputation deterred me; nor will the jeers, the annoyance, or the threats of hon. Members opposite prevent me from doing what I know to be true, what I believe to be right, and what I intend to persevere in.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I think it is only right to state that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I never knew he had any connection with the interference with me or with my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) at Dungannon. The motion to attack from the platform, where I saw the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, was made by the Rev. R. R. Kane. When I was going through the crowd, that rev. gentleman said — '' There is Healy passing; go and show him how you can cheer for the Queen," and the mob turned upon me. I was not aware that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was in the crowd, or that he did anything to prevent me being attacked. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has entirely failed to deal with my chief accusation against him— namely, that he was appointed by the Government who know that he had boasted he was a member of the Orange organization, and who knew what the principles of that organization were. The point of my observation was that he went to the Dungannon meeting and declared there against the liberty of public speech, and of public meeting, and of public organization, and that it was because of his opposition to the rights of the people that he was appointed to his present position. With regard to the Cremorne business, no doubt what I alluded to did occur when he was a boy; but perhaps Sheridan would say the same thing. Perhaps half the people who have been hanged, drawn, and quartered, did similar things when they were boys; but that is no excuse, and did not save them from being hanged. I say it was a disgrace for the Government to have appointed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to his pre- sent position, and that it is impossible to expect the people of Ireland to respect law and order when the Government appoint such a notorious law-breaker to such an Office as that of Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. We know what Cremorne was at the time the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a frequenter of the place. We know that he was convicted of assaulting the police, in spite of all the attempts made to get him off; and it is no answer to my assertion that such a Gentleman should not have been appointed by the Government for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that what occurred at Cremorne was but a foolish and boyish freak. It is not upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that his defence lies. He has defended himself; but I attack the appointment. I attack the Government.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

I thought the hon. and learned Member called me a released convict.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I certainly described the appointment as the appointment of a released convict, and so it was. It was nothing else. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a convict.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Gentleman is surely a sufficient master of himself to be able to conduct his speech without constantly indulging in irritating and—as I think, too frequently—incorrect statements. It is not a correct legal description to speak of a person who has undergone the experience which he has described as a released convict. It is not correct, according to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, to speak of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as a frequenter of the place; it is not correct to speak of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as a notorious lawbreaker. These are all points of aggravation, and a want of correctness, which I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not persevere in.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The word, "convict," Mr. Courtney, no doubt, would be more accurately applied to a person who has undergone penal servitude; but there is no convenient English term to describe a person in the position of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and in its absence I used the term that occurred to my mind. I was referring to the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as one which the Government ought not to have made in view of his position. They had plenty of English Members to choose from, and they had plenty of Irish Members to choose from. They knew, in addition, that he was a member of the Orange Society, a society that is at war with the dearest and most cherished convictions of the Irish people—they knew all this, and yet they appointed him to his present position. They appointed him, knowing that he was a deserter from the Home Rule movement, having been Secretary to the Home Rule Conference in 1883. I blame the Government for that appointment; I blame the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his previous action, and for his connection with the Orange organization; I blame the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland for permitting the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—landlord and Orangeman as he is —to come between us and a British official, who is supposed to be impartial in the discharge of his duties. I say it is not proper that questions of a most important and delicate character should be dealt with at that Table by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I give him credit, as an Irishman, for the absence of bigotry. I do not believe he is a bigoted Orangeman. I give him credit for having a desire to promote the material prosperity of Ireland apart from landlordism. But these are only two items of his position. I blame the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for the expressions he used to Mr. Forster respecting Weldon, and I re-assert that it is a remarkable thing that the expression should have been excluded from the report in the chief organ of the Government. He says he did not get it excluded from that report. I fully believe what he says, and I express my regret for having made the assertion. But I say it is a remarkable thing that a statement so vital to the position of the Government, and so vital to the position of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as a Member of the Government, should have been suppressed by the Government organ. To me, at any rate, it appears as if the gentleman who conducts The Times, or the reporters who manage matters for The Times, know better what is right to be said from the Government Bench than certain Members of the Administration themselves. I cannot move the reduction of the Vote so far as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is concerned, because I am told that he has got no salary. We have got our own opinion as to whether he has got any salary or not.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

Mr. Courtney, I should like to ask you whether it is in Order for the hon. and learned Member to insinuate that I am sitting here under false pretences? As I think every hon. Member in the House except himself knows, I am aiding to the best of my ability without receiving one farthing of emolument in any way. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the hon. and learned Member is in Order in insinuating that I am telling a falsehood when I say I am receiving no salary?

THE CHAIRMAN

I am bound to say that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. T. M. Healy) is out of Order; and I must warn him very seriously that if he perseveres in disregarding the injunction, the warning, and the advice I have given him, I shall be obliged to resort to powers which are vested in the Chair in case of disobedience to the Chair.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I was not aware it was out of Order that we should have our own opinion on a particular matter. I have heard it stated many times in this House—and surely, Mr. Courtney, a remark of that kind has never been deemed to be out of Order—I have always held, and I have heard it stated in this House, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is in receipt of a salary. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says he is not—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! Of course, the phrase "we have our own opinion" is not in itself out of Order; but it is capable of a thousand applications. When a direct statement is made as to fact, and upon that it is observed that "we have our own opinion upon that statement," there is only one interpretation that can be put upon it.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I wish to withdraw the expression, and to accept the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he is not in receipt of a salary. I, however, object, and shall object, to the retention in Office of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman under the circumstances of the present situation in Ireland. He is in the position of an Irish landlord; he is in the position of a gentleman whose rents have been reduced time after time by the action of a legal Commission. He will, during the next few months, have a certain influence in regard to the appointment of a number of Sub-Commissioners, and in the appointment of the Head-Commissioners for their offices under the Land Act; and in addition to that he will have great weight with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland upon all matters relating to Irish Government. Under all the circumstances of the case I think it would be right that I should move a reduction of this Vote to mark my appreciation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's appointment. Unless it is intended to carry on a discussion upon the general question, I will move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £2,000, which would be about equivalent to the salary the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would receive if the Bill now before the House became law. I only trust that by the time that Bill is ripe for discussion in the House we shall have to deal with a Government which will have some greater regard for the feelings of the Irish people than to appoint a Gentleman with a career like that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the present Parliamentary Under Secretary.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £23,967, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

said: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) has moved the reduction of this Vote, in order to get an explanation of the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) to his present position, and to mark our sense of the way in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has discharged his duties. I may be permitted to observe that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was somewhat unfair in attributing to my hon. and learned Friend an intention to make any remarks about him in his absence which he would not have made in his presence. It was not my hon. and learned Friend's fault that he spoke for a few minutes in his absence. My hon. and learned Friend was most anxious that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should be present to hear what he had to say both in reference to his present appointment and to his conduct in fulfilling the duties of his position. My hon. and learned Friend is the last man in this House to say, in the absence of any Member of the House, anything that he would not say in his presence; but, further than that, my hon. and learned Friend reiterated what he had said during the absence of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. We complain of this appointment, in the first place, as has been pointed out, because it is entirely without precedent. Previous Chief Secretaries for Ireland have occupied their responsible and onerous positions in troublesome times, and when the work of the Office was no light task—in times when there were many important Questions on the Notice Paper of the House day after day, and when the state of public affairs as regards Ireland required close and constant attention; but it has remained for the right hon. Gentleman the present occupant of the Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) to establish a precedent of his own, and in connection with some of the most important Irish Business he is represented here by his deputy the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the present Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman). We have to complain of this for several reasons. We have to complain of the selection of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself; we have to complain on account of his antecedents and connection with the social and political movements in Ireland; and we have to complain of his appointment on the ground of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's conduct while he has filled his position. Now, in the first place, it is a matter of serious concern to us that, knowing as we do that some of the most important questions connected with Irish Administration can only be raised at Question time, these Questions cannot be addressed to a responsible Minister. There is no week of the year, or day of the week, in which there are not serious abuses of administra- tion, in which there are not complaints with regard to the Constabulary authorities and various grievances to bring forward, and we claim it as a right that the responsible Minister of the Crown should be here to give that satisfaction to Irish Members which they are entitled to, and which he is appointed to supply. With regard to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, it has been matter for frequent observation in this House that he has thought it consistent with his sense of public duty, and with the gravity of the present condition of affairs in Ireland, to treat Members on these Benches in a manner which is certainly not consistent with Parliamentary tradition, and is certainly repugnant to Parliamentary usage. I speak from experience, and although I do not put many Questions on the Notice Paper, I have yet been answered in such a manner as to make it extremely difficult for me to tolerate the answers received; but, not only that, there was about the air and tone of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that which I will not say was offensive, but certainly not dignified or fair to the Members of this House, who were doing their duty to their constituents, as we who represent Irish constituencies honestly endeavour to do. But there is more than that in the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. There is another fact to be considered by the Committee. The Land Question of Ireland, it will be admitted, is one of great, grave, and pressing importance; it is one which has taken up a large share of time in this House for several years, and which, from the present aspect of affairs in Ireland, will continue to occupy a large share of the attention of this House. It seems to me a most unfortunate selection on the part of the Government that they should have appointed to the position of Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland—a position of great responsibility in the Irish Administration—a Gentleman who is notoriously on the worst possible terms with his own tenantry; who, according to the evidence furnished by the Irish Land Commissioners, has been guilty of rack-renting to an enormous degree. It cannot be said that we are in any way drawing on our imagination for this statement. We refer to the Report of the Commissioners to show that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has rack-rented his tenants to the extent of 25, 40, and 50 per cent, and upon that ground alone I do think the selection of the Government has been most unfortunate. How can it be expected that the people of Ireland will look for fair and impartial treatment, and the holding of an impartial balance between the interests of the tenants and the landlords, when we see that this right hon. and gallant Gentleman with such antecedents and with such a character as a landlord has been appointed to this post? It has been made the subject of complaint that Englishmen and Scotchmen, who know nothing of Ireland, and whose only knowledge of the country has been obtained by a flying visit or two, have been appointed to the Office of Chief Secretary; no matter he w limited their acquaintance may be with Irish political and social questions, notwithstanding their own immediate interest and sympathy with some exorbitant claims on the part of landlords, they may, at least, be considered in some sense as impartial. Can any such defence be urged on behalf of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? Will anyone contend that he will bring a fair and unbiassed mind to the consideration of the many questions which may possibly arise in the six months which will elapse before Parliament re-assembles? It cannot be so contended. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not deem this a question of sufficient importance to retain him in his place in order to hear what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford had to say on that most important point. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot deny that the Land Commissioners have convicted him of exacting most exorbitant rents from his tenantry. But there is another point in connection with the Land Question in Ireland which. I must refer to. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) knows very well that the question of turbary is one which gives rise to constant litigation between the landlords and tenants in Ireland. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford instanced a case that occurred not long ago in which the agent of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ob- tained the conviction of a man for illegal turbary, and which conviction on appeal was quashed. How can the tenants of Ireland expect fair and impartial treatment at the hands of a right hon. and gallant Gentleman who holds such peculiar views with regard to the landlord's right of exclusive turbary and all the other rights claimed by Irish landlords in the past? But we have a more serious indictment against the Government in respect of the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and that is his connection with the Orange Society. He has not denied connection with it in his speech to-night. Knowing the history of that society, knowing what a large element it has been for causing disturbance in Ireland during the past three-quarters of a century, is it not a most unhappy circumstance that a right hon. and gallant Gentleman connected with a bloodstained society—[An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] An hon. Member says "No !" but I refer to the Report of the Commission in Lord Palmerston's time, and the recommendation of that Commission not to appoint any Orangeman to official positions in Ireland. Our objection to this selection is not because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is a Protestant, because sectarianism does not enter into this question at all. It is the political aspect of the question; and I ask if it is not most unfortunate that in the present condition of things the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is an Orangeman and a member of the Orange Society, should have been appointed to this responsible position? But, Sir, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to glory in his declaration, made a couple of years ago at Dungannon, that he would do all that lay in his power—that he would lead a body of armed rowdies to interfere with the right of free speech and public meeting of certain Nationalists in the North of Ireland. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan) has exposed this in two letters—he has convicted the right hon. and gallant Gentleman of a deliberate attempt to suppress free speech and the right of public meeting even at the risk of bloodshed in the North of Ireland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman admits the entire case. He says—" Yes, at the head of loyal men." We know what that means; it moans men loyal to rack-renting and Orange ascendancy, and everything that is bad in Irish history. The right hon. Baronet was then Chief Secretary for Ireland; and surely at that time there were men carrying on the Government of Ireland with a sufficiently strong hand. But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said—" A fig for your legality; we will sweep these vermin the Nationalists off Ulster ! "Will the English people expect, or will the Irish people expect, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was prepared to sacrifice blood on the fields of Dungannon, and was ready to lead armed rowdies to put down public meetings, that he will act impartially as a Member of the present Administration? There can be but one reply to this question. These are matters of public notoriety; they are matters known to every man, woman, and child in Ulster. I say that the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is a scandal and a shame, and that in addition the fact of his being an Orangeman is a further shame on the appointment. But we have not done altogether with his claims to be recognized as a firm upholder of the law and a man qualified to occupy this responsible position in connection with Ireland, because he justifies the language which he used three or four years ago. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman might have claimed perhaps that he had said all this three years ago in the heat of the moment, and that he had not then the soberizing sense of the responsibility which attaches to him as a Member of her Majesty's Government. But, having that responsibility upon him, from his seat on the Treasury Bench he seems to glory in the declaration he made, that he meant to drown in blood the people of Ireland. I think by this appointment the Government cannot have much desire to preserve an even balance between Englishmen and Irishmen. At the time I refer to we associated under great difficulties, but always without the risk of disturbing the public peace. We protested at the time against giving the Government these dictatorial powers, and interfering with the Constitutional right of a free people to hold public meetings and proclaiming their views upon the questions of the day. We know that Lord Spencer was a man of acknowledged firmness, and that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow was a man who seconded him in every way in his power; but it is certain that there would have been most lamentable results if there had been attacks of Orangemen on those meetings, because, naturally enough, you would have had retaliation on the part of such Nationalists who were armed. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was guilty of the public con-duet which I have described, as is well known to the Government of the day and admitted by them, but nevertheless he has been appointed to this Dictatorial and responsible position. Will anyone wonder if the question of the right of public meeting becomes one of great difficulty in Ireland? We shall assert that right of public meeting at all hazards, where it can be proved that there does not exist danger of the disturbance of the public order. Can we expect, or shall we expect, fair treatment from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? It is impossible to say that we can, after his declaration and conduct in the past and his reiteration, here tonight, of those pernicious and terrible doctrines. They are doctrines which preached or practised would lead to bloodshed in many parts of the country; they are doctrines repugnant to the sense of Constitutional liberty even of the most darkened Tories. I believe even the most backward Tories on the opposite Benches have at least some desire that the right of public meeting should be respected; and yet we shall probably be exposed during the next six months to a large share of the control and influence of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I repeat that this is a most unhappy selection, and one which it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to justify with his powers of assertion, which are undoubtedly large. I have referred to the fact that we have had occasion to find fault with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's way of answering Questions in the House. In my opinion, the duty never should have devolved upon him to answer those Questions; but, owing to the present arrangement, I have had to complain of his tone and of the snappish manner in which he has answered me in reply to the most innocent Questions. To Questions which have contained no element of heat whatever, he has replied in a manner in which no Minister of the Crown should reply to any hon. Member in this House. This may appear a comparatively trivial matter to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They may probably say that the manner of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is due to firmness and bluntness of character; but it is nothing of the kind. It is the result of his ignorance of the responsibilities of the position which he fills, and which responsibilties lie heavily upon each and every Member of the Irish Administration at the present time. This most unhappy selection of the Government has added discredit to an already discredited Ministry, and it has placed them in this position, that we shall be able to say that they cannot ask for the confidence of the Irish people in the laws which they have passed. It is on these grounds that we ask the Committee to mark its sense of this right hon. and gallant Gentleman's appointment by supporting the Motion for the reduction of the Vote. I trust that when we have passed through the coming six months, and when Parliament has reassembled, the country will not have received many convincing proofs of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's incapacity to deal with questions of policy and questions affecting Ireland generally; although I cannot but believe that the country by that time will have received many proofs that the selection of the Government has been unfortunate, dangerous, and hostile to the best interests of the country.

MR. W. A. MACDONALD (Queen's Co., Ossory)

I hope it will not be supposed that my opposition to this Vote will be founded on any narrow issue. On the contrary, it is founded on broad, general grounds, which I hope will satisfy the Committee and the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is absolutely ignorant of Ireland; and I contend that if there were no other objection to this Vote than this fact it would be amply sufficient to justify our opposing it. What is the virtual position of this matter? We have here in this House hon. Members from Scotland objecting very gravely to the Secretary for Scotland; but suppose that, in addition to his other disqualifications and disadvantages, it might be alleged, with truth, that he was utterly ignorant of Scotland and of Scotch affairs, what sort of an effect would that not be be likely to produce in this House and in Scotland? Does not everybody see that the effect would be to rouse such a storm in Scotland, and such indignation amongst Scotch Members, that the Government would be compelled to change their position? Well, but that is precisely the position you adopt in regard to Ireland. You treat Ireland on an absolutely different principle to that on which you treat Scotland. And what are you virtually saying? You declare that the Irish problem is the most difficult one you have to deal with, that, in fact, it has baffled statesmen for generations; and yet you appoint, as Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, practically as the ruler of Ireland, a man who confessedly knows nothing of the country. Now, not only do you do that, but you appoint a man who, as far as I can judge, does not try to know anything about Ireland. Since the right hon. Gentleman has been appointed, so far as I am aware, he has only visited Ireland twice; first, on the occasion when he—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is not aware, probably, that an Amendment has been moved with regard to the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) as Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The discussion must be confined to that point.

MR. W. A. MACDONALD

Of course, I submit to your ruling at ones, Sir; but I was under the impression that as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet receives no salary, the question of his appointment could not be brought under any specific head, and that I might as well discuss the general question as that particular point. If you think, however, Sir, that it is more in accordance with the Rules of the House that I should defer my remarks until after this subject is disposed of I will do so.

MR. BLANE (Armagh, S.)

I wish, Sir, to join my hon. Colleague in objecting to the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. I do not think the appointment is a very extraordinary one, when you come to reflect upon it, and to consider the position of the Chief Secretary. I can well understand that a Gentleman who is, by common repute, an oppressive Scotch landlord, should appoint as his deputy a Gentleman who is well known as an oppressive Irish landlord. By common repute the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is one of those Gentlemen who, in Scotland, confiscate a good deal of the tenants' improvements; and the right hon. and gallant Gentlemen the Member for the Isle of Thanet is apparently after the Chief Secretary's own heart, for he confiscates in Ireland the improvements of his tenants, and their labour, where-ever he can. In my own opinion, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary took a very consistent course when he appointed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as his subordinate. I agree with my hon. Colleagues in objecting to that appointment; but I cannot say that it is inconsistent. On the contrary, I think it is altogether consistent with the proceedings of the right hon. Gentleman. Apparently, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary is working without wages; but, if he is doing so in reality, he is the first Irish landlord to follow that course. I never knew an Irish landlord who did not manage to get paid, in some way or other, for everything he did. They always have a quid pro quo for whatever they do. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman belongs to the Orange Organization—an organization which we know, by the records of this House, endeavoured to set aside the Sovereign and place the Duke of Cumberland on the Throne. These are the men who prate and preach about their loyalty, and these are the men who point the finger of scorn at us, and say that we are not sufficiently loyal. But we can reply to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Friends that, so far as we are concerned—we and our Predecessors who took up a position in this House similar to that which we now occupy—that we were always more loyal to the Crown than these Gentlemen who parade and make so much of their so-called loyalty. We are told by history that 7,000 families were turned out of the County of Armagh by this organization of which the Under Secretary is a professed member—this deputy who has no salary. He is not averse to the proceedings described by Plowden, because, a short time ago, he endeavoured to put down the right of public meeting in the counties of Armagh and Tyrone, and other counties in Ulster. He has the appointment of Orangemen as magistrates, and one appointment in the County of Armagh, which was made by the Chief Secretary—I do not know whether by the present Chief Secretary, but I think it was confirmed by him recently—was that of a gentleman named Hamilton. This gentleman is a member of the Orange organization, and this gentleman it was who stood opposite my house, and although he had the 42nd Regiment and other men under his command, he refused to budge an inch while the place was being demolished. When I put a Question in this House on the subject, what was the answer I received? Why, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary thought it was all a mistake. He said that a few panes of glass were broken, and that no further damage was done, and that my statement was an exaggeration. Well, Sir, I not only put a Question in this House on the subject, but I myself was a witness of the atrocity. It was after 9 o'clock at night when the depredation was done, and I could have fired from my house after that hour if I had chosen, as it was a burglarious attack. But what did the Orange magistrate do? Why, he drew up the police in front of my house, lest I should fire, so that he might be able to arrest me instantly. He did not arrest the men who fired into the house; and those who attacked it not only threw stones, but actually fired into the house. There was not a solitary word in the Export rendered by the Resident Magistrate with reference to the firing that went on on that occasion. He made no reference to it whatever; and one of the reasons why I so strongly object to this Orange Under Secretary to the Chief Secretary is that the statements which are being made day after day at that Table are not true. [Cries of "Oh !" and "Order ! "] Well, Sir, when the Chief Secretary rises up in his place, I do not say that he makes statements which, to his own knowledge, are untrue. Every man who occupies the position of Chief Secretary must depend upon secondhand information; but we, the Irish Members, know that day after day he rises at that Table, and makes state- ments completely at variance with the facts. I say that that is a most humiliating position, for a Chief Secretary for Ireland to occupy, or for his Deputy to occupy. From the antecedents of the Chief Secretary, it would seem likely that the position does not annoy him very much; but I assume that even an oppressive Scotch landlord has some idea of what is due to this House, and therefore it is that I think the right hon. Gentleman should answer Questions himself, and that he should do without a Deputy as far as possible. The information that is received is from the different officials in Ireland who are always controlled by the Orange Society, Sir William Kaye, the Assistant Under Secretary at the Castle, whose duty it is to swear in Privy Councillors, is an Orangeman too. He belongs to my county and my constituency. As to Mr. Hamilton, I know his antecedents, and I know the antecedents of those gentlemen with whom the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is associated; and I say it is a monstrous thing that hon. Gentlemen in this House representing Irish constituencies—including myself and others who represent Ulster constituencies—should have to rise in our places and put Questions to the Chief Secretary, knowing perfectly well, before they answer these Questions, the description of replies which we shall receive. We can well anticipate the answers which will be given by these men. I join my hon. Colleagues in objecting to this appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

The matter—the physical matter—is great indeed, but the mental capabilities are small of the subject under dispute. I had the pleasure of being acquainted with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet many many years ago. At that time he was called "The King." Goodness knows why he was called "The King," except that it formed portion of his name; but, at any rate, he was considered to be the king of a certain section of the population who had great influence, as part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's career shows, at Cremorne and such places; but, Sir, why was the right hon. and gallant Gentleman chosen Under Secretary? Why was he chosen by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland as his buffer? It was as I have said. Sir, because the physical matter was thick; because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is dense; because he is pachydermatous, being of a rhinoceros-like sort of nature—

THE CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. Member to approach the consideration of the Business in a little more serious tone, and to use language a little more becoming to the House of Commons.

Several hon. MEMBERS

Hear, hear!

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order !

DR. TANNER

I presume, Sir, I am not out of Order in saying that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is pachydermatous, because that only means thickskinned; and I intended to say that, accordingly, the shafts of ridicule which might wound a tender and sensitive being like the Chief Secretary drop off harmless from the scales which clothe the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman clearly was appointed for the sake of protecting the Chief Secretary from the Questions which, in the interests of our constituents, we are obliged to address to him from time to time. Well, Sir, it is the old, old story. In the words of the comic opera, it is— The pretty little flower and old oak tree. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary required some assistance, and he has got it in the shape, the material shape, of the Parliamentary Under Secretary. Well, now we have to complain, as has already been stated, of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's manner in answering Questions. His manner in answering Questions ought to be plainly perceived and understood by every Member of the House. [" Hoar, hear ! "] "Hoar, hear !" says a Gentleman who is certainly one of the most thoroughly free from bias sitting upon the other side of the House. Well, when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant comes to the Table, his manner in itself is immense, at any rate, to the person who puts the Question. He comes up—and does he ever attempt to answer any Question without reading it? No, Sir; he comes up, and he reads out the answer, which, I presume, is supplied to him. It is merely a mechanical action—"Pull the string, and the figure will work." The right hon. and gallant Gentleman comes up and reads out his answer, and if you ask him anything supplementary, he says to you—"Put the Question, down on the Paper," or, "I shall be most happy to answer this on a future occasion." Why, Sir, I imagine that in a House like this, which is for the management of Public Business, Members ought to be approached in a very different manner, and in a very different method to that. [" Hear, hear ! "] "Hear, hear !" says an hon. Gentleman opposite. Well, Sir, it is ludicrous—it really is a ludicrous state of affairs—[Ministerial cheers]— —

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order !

DR. TANNER

It would be ludicrous in itself were it not for the reverse side of the picture. It is ludicrous in this House; but it is intended as an insult to the people of Ireland. A Gentleman who has always declared himself to be an enemy of the mass of the people of Ireland is selected as Under Secretary for the reason that he belongs to the classes. "The classes against the masses" has always been the doctrine of a Tory Administration, and, forsooth, when they come to deal with Ireland, they put it in a practicable way by adopting as Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland merely a figurehead, a representative of the classes, and they do it merely as an insult to the people of Ireland. I sincerely trust that that insult will not bear bad fruit. For my own part, I know that putting Questions to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman day after day is very tiring, because when you had the pleasure of knowing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman once, under different circumstances, when he comes up and answers Questions in his particularly and peculiarly offensive way, one almost loses patience and gets tired of the thing. Everybody sitting on this side below the Gangway will bear me out that the manner of the Under Secretary is particularly and peculiarly offensive, and I maintain that in itself is capable of creating an increased estrangement between law and order and the people of Ireland—the law and order of which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now supposed to be the responsible upholder. Now, if business is going to be carried on, and carried on in a spirit of respect for law and order, I really think the Government have gone the very worst possible way to work to secure it, and, accordingly, I sincerely hope that the Government will seriously weigh the observations which have been addressed to them in the course of this debate. This question will crop up again at some future time, because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not always to do his work for nothing. He will have to be paid sooner or later. I did not rise, Sir, for the purpose of inflicting a long speech upon the Committee in connection with this matter—a matter which appears to me a most lamentable, and, I might almost say a most degraded one—but I rise to express a sincere hope that the Government will, at any rate before the affair goes too far—before the winter comes in and the dark nights come on—they will, at any rate, adopt some safeguard, some muzzle, in order to prevent the right hon. and gallant Gentleman giving effect to those bloodthirsty views which are characteristic of the Orange Society. ["Order, order!"] The noble Marquess says "Order, order;" but does he know anything about the Orange Society? They once tried to swear me in, and I can tell this Committee what my experience was. I was told then and there that the object of the Orange Society was to drive Catholics out of Ireland; and because I said to the man who swore me in as an Orangeman that Catholics had as good a right to live as Protestants, he refused to have me as an Orangeman. I was only a boy of 15 years of age at that time. That, however, is the organization to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman belongs, and that is the organization to my criticism of which the noble Marquess opposite says, "Order, order!" Let the noble Marquess learn something about it. That is the organization of which, as I say, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is the frontispiece. If this sort of figure head be adopted to grace Her Majesty's Government, all I can say is, that I congratulate them upon it, because he will be a figure head which will lead them to digrace—which will lead them to that digrace and retirement which I sincerely hope to see them find a refugium peccatorium at no distant date.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

I do not rise to utter a single word of reply to the exceedingly personal attack which the hon. Member who has just sat down has made upon my right hon. and gallant Friend. What he has uttered I imagine is quite within the strict limits of debate, yet I think everyone who heard him will admit that that speech, was a species of personal attack which does little credit to, and which, if it becomes permanent in this House, will entirely destroy what remains of the dignity of the Parliament of this country. The appointment of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member of the Isle of Thanet, as Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, has been described by other hon. Members below the Gangway opposite in speeches, the general tone of which I might complain, though the speeches they have delivered at all events, as contrasted with that of the hon. Member who has just sat down, may be deemed both dignified and moderate. Now, I am glad to have this opportunity of bearing my testimony as the person best qualified to judge, to the ability and effect with which my right hon, and gallant Friend has performed the duties which have been devolved upon him, and I would especially call the attention of the Committee to the kind of criticism which has been made upon my right hon. and gallant Friend, as compared and contrasted with the kind of criticism which has been passed upon myself. The accusation of hon. Gentlemen when dealing with the humble individual who now addresses the Committee is, that I am entirely ignorant of Irish affairs. They say that, being a Scotchman, and not having resided for any great length of time in Ireland, it is impossible for me to have that intimate knowledge of the affairs of Ireland to qualify me for the administration of the business of that country. Very well, Sir, that accusation is one which I conceive might have been levelled, and was no doubt levelled with equal force against everyone of my predecessors. So far as I am aware, since the time of the late Lord Mayo, there has not been a single Irishman appointed to this Office. Well, I have heard, a statement by Gentlemen, not Irish Members but Radical Members, to the effect that the appointments of Eng- lishmen or Scotchmen to the post of Chief Secretary, shows a want of sympathy with Irish requirements. There may be some faint justification for that idea; but, at all events, the Government were of opinion that if an Under Secretary were appointed, an Irishman should be chosen, and observe what the result of the appointment of an Irishman has been. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have occupied their time ever since my right hon. and gallant Friend was appointed, in raking up every incident, or every imagined incident, in his past life which they thought could be used against him. Where history failed they have fallen back on invention. They have coloured and exaggerated every incident when there was any foundation whatever for it, and where they failed to find a slight foundation of fact for an incident, they have done without it and have invented the whole thing. [Cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he is exceeding the limit of Parliamentary debate when he attributes to hon. Members the invention of charges against the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I admit that the expression was highly un-Parliamentary, and I apologize for having used it. I will say that hon. Members have been carried away by the force and fervour of their imaginations in dealing with this subject. It will be observed that every Irishman, or, at all events, every Irishman that I have ever seen or heard of, whoso life has been passed in Ireland, and who, therefore, is acquainted from personal experience with Irish affairs, is, owing to the very fact that he is so mixed up with Irish affairs, connected, or supposed to be connected, with one of the Parties into which that country is divided. It is, therefore, impossible that any Irishman could be appointed of whom it would not be open to hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that he belonged to this or that organization of which they disapprove, and that he is, therefore, wholly incapable of managing Irish affairs. We are, therefore, in this dilemma—if we appoint a man who is not an Irishman, he knows nothing of Irish affairs, and should not be entrusted with their administration, and if we appoint an Irishman, he is a member of some organization and therefore cannot be trusted in the Executive. [An hon. MEMBER: He is an Orangeman.] The hon. Member will kindly allow me to go on with my speech. If the Chief Secretary is not an Irishman, hon. Members say he is totally ignorant of Irish affairs and has no proper qualification for their administration; and if he is an Irishman they say he is connected with some Party which makes him practically incapable of holding an equal balance between the two Parties. Now, if the canons laid down by hon. Gentlemen for the appointment of Irish Secretaries were adhered to, you would never have an Irish Secretary at all. I will not endeavour to deal with the personal accusations which have been brought against my right hon. and gallant Friend. My right hon. and gallant Friend has himself dealt with them in the speech he has delivered, and has blown them into ten thousand fragments. It would be as unbecoming, as it would be unnecessary for me to again go over the ground which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has so well traversed, and I only rose, therefore, briefly to expose the contradictions and fallacies which underlie the speeches which have been delivered, and briefly to take this opportunity of bearing publicly my testimony to the ability and industry and efficiency which my right hon. and gallant Friend has displayed in the discharge of the duties of his Office.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I do not intend or desire to prolong this discussion to any considerable extent, as I think we have now reached a period at which it might be fairly concluded; but I do think that before we leave this branch of the question, we are entitled to complain of the conduct of the Government in this respect, because what have the Government done? Why have they made an appointment which, so far as I can understand it, is entirely without precedent? There has been a difference of opinion between the two Front Benches on that point, and the Government have given a distinct pledge on more than one occasion in my own hearing, that in. this Session a Bill should be introduced for the purpose of confirming the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. From that pledge they have now withdrawn. I consider that the Irish Representatives have serious grounds of grievance for the Government withdrawing from that pledge which they distinctly have done. That in itself is a sufficient ground and justification for the debate which has now arisen in, I think, a very inadequate and inconvenient way. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary bears his testimony to the efficiency of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland. Well, in the first place, I must say that I do not believe there is a man in the House more unqualified to give testimony to the efficiency of anybody than the right hon. Gentleman. I would allude to two points mentioned in his speech. He founded an elaborate argument, which seemed to be perfectly satisfactory to his own mind—for he treated it as an argument which he himself believed—that no Irishman could be appointed to the Irish Secretaryship without being open to the charge of his being a Party man. He condemned the appointment of Irishmen to this Office as inconvenient, because of the peculiar position of the Irish Government; but what are the facts concerning the Irish. Government? Men are appointed to the Irish Secretaryship altogether independently and apart from any control by the Irish people. You require, therefore, on the part of a man so appointed, qualifications which you would not ordinarily require in appointments as between the two Front Benches. We have no Parliamentary control over those officials—we cannot influence their action. We go on talking here, but all to no purpose. It may give some satisfaction to our constituents that we should goon criticizing in this wav, talking by the hour; but we know that it is all to no purpose. It is followed by no results, and all our words fall on the Chief Secretary like water on a duck's back. He is not affected by what we say, and he is therefore placed absolutely beyond all effective criticism on the part of the Representatives of the Irish people. Therefore you are bound to look for, in a man responsible for the administration of the law in Ireland, very different qualifications from those you would expect in. an Englishman, who is appointed and controlled by the Representatives of the majority of his countrymen in this House. We find, when we come to examine the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary more closely, that they will not bear scrutiny. He says that the condition of things is such that it would be impossible to find any Irishman who was not subject to this criticism. Well, I admit that in the present position of the Government, so long as you maintain it, it is almost beyond the wit of man to find an Irish Member who would hold the balance evenly between all Parties. That is one of the ineradicable evils of the system of Government in Ireland. Does it not condemn your system of government in that country when you are obliged to stand up and admit that you cannot find, to administer the Government of the country, a man who really understands the affairs of that country? But the Government, by the appointment of an Irishman which they have now the effrontery to boast of as a step in the right direction, have shown that they have no desire to seek out a man who could by any possibility be considered an impartial man. Why, Sir, there are hundreds of men in Ireland, intelligent business men, who have not taken any active part in politics on one side or the other who might have been placed in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's position, who would not have conducted themselves so objectionably and with such animosity to a Party in the House as that right hon. and gallant Gentleman has done. Did the Government seek for a man who would act impartially between the contending factions in Ireland? Clearly they did not. Who did they pitch upon? In criticizing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman I am not going to do it as a personal matter, but I am going to treat him as a public man in Ireland. They pitched upon the Member for the Isle of Thanet. Sir, they might just as well have taken myself as Under Secretary, and I fully admit that, from their point of view, to appoint me or any hon. Member who is prominent on these Benches as Chief Secretary or Under Secretary would have caused the raising of an uproar by the Landlord Party. But have we not a right to complain as well as the Irish landlords? I challenge hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say in what respect is it less unjust to the people of Ireland for the landlords to appoint one of their fuglemen and champions in Ireland to have unrestrained power over them than it would have been if the Government had appointed myself or the hon. Member for the City of Cork. If my hon. Friend or myself were appointed to positions in the Government of Ireland, the landlords would have had just cause to complain. Supposing the Unionist Government comes into power, and supposing that in order to show their impartiality they signalized their advent to power by the appointment of the hon. Member for Cork, or myself, or any hon. Member on these Benches Chief Secretary for Ireland, I should like to hear the uproar which would arise throughout the country. But that is precisely similar to what you have done. For the Office of Chief Secretary you have not shown the slightest desire or made the least attempt to select an Irishman; but when you have made up your minds to associate with the Chief Secretary an Irishman, it would only have been reasonable to expect that whilst selecting someone who knew something of Irish politics, you would have chosen a man who would have been in some way acceptable to the Irish people. But that you did not do—you cast your eyes round and selected a man whose solo recommendation is that he is the bitterest partizan. He is a strong supporter of this Conservative Government—an Orange Loader, and who is attended by every circumstance which can render him unacceptable by the Irish people. I should think that with, perhaps, the exception of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson)—and those two men may be said to run neck and neck together—you could not have selected from the whole of Ireland a man who would have been more objectionable to the people of that country in the position in which you have placed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. I have classed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh together; but there is this difference between them—that in the case of the latter Gentleman there has been less dispute with his tenantry than there has been in the case of the Under Secretary. Practically, however, those Gentlemen stand upon the same platform—they are both bitter partizans, both Orangemen, and both champions of evictions. It is obvious that the Government has selected the present Under Secretary for the simple reason that he is a bitter partizan. And in the course you have taken I venture to say that even the Tory Party sitting opposite do not approve of it. Men who belong to your own Party have come to me and have said that this appointment on your part is a most extraordinary proceeding. The only means the Irish Members have, as Representatives of the Irish people, of bringing influence to bear on the Government for the remedy of grievances is by a system of Questions; well, but the Chief Secretary has appointed this bitter Orange partizan to fulfil this task. The right hon. Gentleman, himself responsible for the Government of Ireland, sneaks behind the Speaker's Chair, and refuses to answer our Questions, leaving this partizan Under Secretary to discharge his duty. We know perfectly well, from the experience of other Irish Secretaries—we know from the statement of Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, one Chief Secretary—that the putting of Questions to him in this House was a valuable assistance to him, enabling him to discharge his duties satisfactorily. Mr. Campbell-Bannerman stated in this House that the putting of Questions sometimes enabled him to obtain correct information upon matters with regard to which he had been imperfectly informed. They were the moans of guiding him in making a thorough investigation into certain matters, and enabling him ultimately to arrive at the truth, and of course, in that way, to carry on a more efficient administration. This system of putting1 Questions is one of the greatest means—in fact, the only means—we, as the Representatives of the people of Ireland, have of bringing any influence to bear upon the Administration of that country—the only means, I say, is putting Questions, and insisting upon answers being given. And what does the Irish Chief Secretary do—who is the only responsible officer of the Administration of Ireland—under these circumstances? He puts up this right hon. and gallant Gentleman, this partizan leader, whilst he himself, as I again say, sneaks behind the Speaker's Chair. I say the Chief Secretary is the only official we have to look to. In England you have many officials, but we Irish Representatives have only the Chief Secretary, for the Irish Attorney General cannot speak with authority upon matters of general administration, and if he could he is only a subordinate. It is only very occasionally that the Chief Secretary comes from his hiding place, and deigns to answer a Question. I have seen him frequently in the corner there, sometimes this side of the door, sometimes the other side, waiting for the moment the last Question is put, with the deliberate intention of evading the duty of replying to our queries. I want to know what the right hon. Gentleman the Irish Chief Secretary is here for? The business of answering Irish Questions is his chief duty, the government of Ireland being managed by Sir Redvers Buller, and by far the most important part of the right hon. Gentleman's function is, or ought to be, attending here at Question time, in order to answer hon. Members who represent Ireland; but instead of taking a proper view of his duties, he puts up, as I say, a partizan who hates all of us, and all our convictions. Being an Irishman, he, of course, takes a peculiarly envenomed view of those Irish questions which an Englishman would not take. His manner was particularly offensive when he first commenced the duty which the Chief Secretary transferred to him. No doubt, his experience after the first two or three weeks and I suppose the many friendly admonitions he has received have produced an effect upon him, and have toned him down very considerably; but still, although his manner has improved, he is just as unsatisfactory in answering Questions as he was at first. His answers are of a wooden description. He merely reads out statements which have been supplied to him from Dublin Castle, and we can get no satisfaction from him at all. We feel we are dealing with a hostile witness, with an enemy whose object is to mislead, who, as a matter of fact, represents the officials in Ireland acting as their partizan and not as an impartial Member of the Executive, whose duty it is to take an impartial and judicial position between the public and the officials. What we want, so long as the present abominable Government exists, is that we should have a man in the Irish Office, be he English, Irish, or Scotch—and I am not so very anxious that he should be an Irishman—who will endeavour to look into the working of the Irish Office, in a spirit of honesty, and will resolutely strive to arrive at the truth without allowing himself to be biassed in favour of the officials. There cannot be the slightest doubt, even from the point of view of a Unionist, that the great evil in Ireland is the existence of a bureaucratic system—this old crusted system, crusted with long impunity and irresponsibility and want of criticism in Dublin Castle. Even from the point of view of the Unionist, you should have in Ireland a Chief Secretary who will approach those matters with an open mind, and who will, if he finds that the officials are right, be prepared to defend them, but, if he finds that they are wrong, will be prepared to condemn them. But here we have a man who is a bitter partizan, who comes to this House, not as an impartial administrator, but as the champion of the Irish officials, as the enemy of the Irish people or their Representatives, and determined to meet all their questions by answers which shall be satisfactory to no one but himself and those he represents. We desire to criticize the conduct of those officials, and to have their actions judged impartially, and that is why we consider the appointment of the present Under Secretary for Ireland altogether indefensible. I am anxious to bring this discussion to a close, in order that we may proceed to consider the question of general administration under this Vote; but I warn the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that this question will be raised on a future occasion, when the Government bring forward their proposal for fixing the salary of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman), and when the question is again raised I shall be very much surprised if we do not get some support, even from hon. Members opposite.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I have listened very attentively to the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and I must say I do not suppose he wishes to do an injustice to an opponent, even to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. I have no doubt that he has uttered what he believes to be absolutely true, so far as his views are concerned; but I join issue, on behalf the Government, with the hon. Gentleman. The appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was the appointment of the Government, and the acts of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman are the acts of the Government. We are responsible for them; we entirely accept that responsibility; and instead of believing, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo does, that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under Secretary is influenced by partial motives, and is anxious to shield officials unjustly, we believe that he is absolutely impartial, and is incapable of any attempt unduly and impartially to protect those officers who have in any way failed to do their duty to any hon. Gentleman in this House, either on the opposite side or on this. I can understand the feeling which the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo and other hon. Gentlemen opposite have given expression to, and I deeply deplore it. I think it most unfortunate that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland are at present—I will not say they will always be so—but that they are at present incapable of doing complete justice to the qualities of those to whom they are politically opposed. I say it is a great misfortune, and I hope the time is coming when the capacity for doing absolute justice—for doing complete ustice—to those from whom they differ, will come to hon. Members from Ireland, as I trust it will always exist in England.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

Parnellism and Crime !

MR. W. H. SMITH

I have never been of opinion that interruptions are arguments. I am not in the habit of interrupting the hon. and learned Member for North Longford nor his Colleagues when they are attempting to place their views before the House. I will not prolong this discussion any further, except to say that we, the Government, accept, entirely and freely, complete responsibility for all the acts of my right hon. and gallant Friend; that it is at their instance that the course which has been adopted has been pursued; and that, in our judgment, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet has most conscientiously endeavoured to discharge his duty by the Government, and by the country to which he belongs.

MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)

We have had a very edifying statement from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury; but I must just remark that, in my opinion, it comes with remarkably good grace from the vendor of Parnellism and Crime.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 113: Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 438.) [10.45 P.M.]

Original Question again proposed.

MR. W. A. MACDONALD

The arguments I was endeavouring to addross to the Committee when I was interrupted I think were not appreciated by the Chief Secretary. I did not complain of him because he is not an Irishman; but what we do complain of is that he is a Scotchman wholly ignorant of Ireland. All Scotchmen and all Englishmen are not wholly ignorant of Ireland; and I am thankful to say that the number of those Scotchmen and Englishmen who were appointed to the Chief Secretaryship of Ireland without any knowledge of that country is, and Is as been, rapidly diminishing. I think that the least we can expect is that when the Government appoint a Chief Secretary who is not an Irishman, they should appoint someone whom they know has had some contact with the country, some personal experience of it, and entertains some sympathy with it. Now, I was saying that the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary not only knows nothing about Ireland, because, so far as I am aware, he has only made two visits to that country since his appointment—the first time when he took the Oath as Chief Secretary, and the second time when he went over to Ireland for the purpose of proclaiming the country. Now, our complaint is not merely that the right hon. Gentleman is ignorant of Ireland, and does not wish to know anything about it, but we complain also that he does not discharge his duties in this House. He is distinctly appointed to do certain work, and that work he throws over on to the shoulders of another. Now, I say, Sir, that even if that other were thoroughly as competent as we believe him to be incompetent, the right hon. Gentleman ought not to throw his work upon the shoulders of anybody. He ought to do his work himself. The right hon. Gentleman does not choose to do his own work, and I think it rather hard that he should get a man to do it, and give him no salary for his pains. I must say that if I had dirty work to do, and wanted it done by somebody else, I should take care that the person who did it should be paid for doing it. But the Government give the right hon. and I gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet no salary. They have not attempted to introduce into this House a Bill for the purpose of giving him a salary, and I do think that that is rather hard upon the Parliamentary Under Secretary. Now, Sir, what is the position in which the Irish Members are placed in this House? We are compelled, by the Rules of the House, to address our Questions to the Head of the Department—we have been distinctly told that that is the course for us to pursue—and instead of acting as we do in other cases—that is to say, instead of putting down our Questions to the Ministers who will reply to them, we are compelled to go through the farce and the utter absurdity of saying—" I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question," when we know perfectly well that the Question will not be answered by him, but by his subordinates. Now, I do not think that that is the way in which hon. Members ought to be treated in this House. And now I want, for two or three minutes, to institute a comparison between the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and others who have held a similar position in this House, and I do not think that that comparison will be particularly favourable to the present Chief Secretary. In 1874 the Conservative Government took Office, and they appointed as their Chief Secretary the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach); that right hon. Gentleman made himself thoroughly acquainted with all the Departments of the Irish Administration. In his time there was passed probably one of the most useful measures which have ever been passed in Ireland—namely, the Intermediate Education Act; and, so far as it was possible for anyone of his politics to gain the respect and goodwill of the people of Ireland, they were gained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol at that time. Then he was followed in the Office by Mr. James Lowther, of whom I will only say that if he could do nothing else, he could do one thing which the Irish people at that time appreciated—he could hunt. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) can hunt. I imagine it would imply too much exertion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. We have, however, heard something in the House of the right hon. Gentleman's talents and abilities in the way of boating. My experience is that the right hon. Gentleman can neither hunt nor punt. With the change in Government that followed, we had in Ireland the late Mr. W. E. Forster. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will say—" Well, at any rate, I am doing better than Mr. Forster;" but is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that he is doing better, or is likely to do better, than Mr. Forster? Mr. Forster failed, because he put 1,000 Irishmen in prison and kept them there without trial, because in that he suspended the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. We have been told, on high authority, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has virtually suspended, although not in form, the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland, because the trial to which my hon. Friends and myself may be subjected to by-and-bye, if we hold meetings of the proclaimed National League, will be a sham and a delusion; and, therefore, the failure which beset Mr. Forster is, I think, very likely indeed to beset the right hon. Gentleman. But, at any rate, whatever Mr. Forster's faults were, they were the faults of his head rather than of his heart. We all knew perfectly well that Mr. Forster sympathized with Ireland in the time of her greatest sorrow, and showed that sympathy by visiting the country and by personally administering to the wants of the dying people. When has the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary ever manifested anything at all approaching such sympathy for Ireland? Then after Mr. Forster we had the right hon. Gentleman the present Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan). Well, Sir, we think he has atoned for many faults in his administration by having seen the true remedy for Irish grievances, and by setting himself deliberately to secure that remedy. Then we had as Chief Secretary the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), who also found salvation in Home Rule. Then there was a change of Government and you came into power once more, and you appointed as Chief Secretary the right hon. Gentleman the present Vice President of the Council (Sir William Hart Dyke), who, at any rate, did no harm if he did no particular good. Then we had after him the right hon. Gentleman who now leads the House (Mr. W. H. Smith). His tenure of Office was not particularly long; indeed, I believe it lasted only for 48 hours. But, when we consider the distinguished ability with which he conducts Business in this House, when we remember how versatile he is, how extraordinary his eloquence, and how wonderful his power of illustration is, and what a master he is of all the tricks and rules of debate, when we remember what an illustrious person in every respect he is, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will feel that, compared with him, he must hide his diminished head. Then we had, when the Government once more changed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) who, by his participation in the great measure, did more for the pacification of Ireland than all your 87 Coercion Acts of the present century rolled into one have done. Now, all these various Chief Secretaries differed from one another in a great many points. They differed in temperament, in politics; but there was one point on which they all agreed—they did their own work. They stood firmly; they stood up against the attacks which were made upon them from these Benches; they stood them like men; they braved the storm. But what does the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) do? He does not brave the storm; the right hon. Gentleman hides himself from the shower of criticism which is continually falling from these Benches, owing to the superior knowledge we possess of the condition of our country. I can easily understand that Lord Salisbury may have been very anxious to find a place for the right hon. Gen- tleman. I can easily understand the motives which, may have induced him to desire to shelter him from our criticism, and the exposure of his ignorance which would be sure to follow, if he answered our Questions for himself. But I do not think the House or the country will acquit the right hon. Gentleman of blame for not doing the work which he has been appointed and paid to perform. Then, Sir, there is another complaint which I make against the right hon. Gentleman. I had the honour of introducing to the Gallery of this House an Austrian lady, whose ability, I think, will not be denied by the right hon. Gentleman, when I say that she is an occasional contributor to The Free Press of Vienna and The Pesther Lloyd. She was very anxious to see our Parliamentary system at work, and she observed very carefully all she saw. I was very naturally much impressed by her criticisms, and what she said was that she had always supposed that English gentlemen were superior—[Cries of "Question ! "]—you will see the Question in a moment—I am not running away from it—she said she always supposed that English gentlemen were superior to all others, but that her opinion on that subject was considerably modified when she observed the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite She added that there was one man—and now hon. Gentlemen opposite will understand the point of my remarks—there was one man on the Front Government Bench who reclined or stretched himself out at full length when Irish Members were speaking, pretending to be asleep; but, she said, you could easily see that the right hon. Gentleman was not asleep, for every now and then he would laugh derisively. That was during the passage of the Crimes Bill through this House, and I, for one, had no great difficulty in identifying the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. I do think that in the somewhat delicate position which the right hon. Gentleman occupies we ought to receive courtesy at his hands—he ought to observe all the principles of courtesy which, of course, he so well understands. My friend has lived in Italy, in France, in Germany, in Scotland, and in Ireland; but very likely she was not very intimately acquainted with the manner of the English aristocracy, of which the right hon. Gentleman is so distinguished a scion. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may think courtesy a small matter, and discourtesy a small matter; they may think that courtesy is a thing which you may take off and put on at pleasure, just as a man takes off and puts on his clothes; but I hold that bad manners are bad models, and I say the right hon. Gentleman ought to learn this lesson and treat hon. Gentlemen of this House invariably with courtesy, and in a very different style to that in which he acted when the Crimes Bill was passing through the House. There is another charge still graver which I desire to bring against the right hon. Gentleman. I deliberately charge the right hon. Gentleman with breaking a pledge which he solemnly gave to this House. My hon. Friend the junior Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Maurice Healy) made this clear to the world, and it was commented upon in various newspapers, and even the most moderate newspapers gave a verdict against the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman distinctly promised, when the Crimes Bill was passing through Committee, that he would introduce a clause in it which would provide that anyone accused under the Act should have a right of appeal, no matter how short the term of his imprisonment might be. It was not convenient to the right hon. Gentleman to keep that pledge. The Times newspaper shrieked against it, and, of course, he immediately followed the doctrine taught him by The Times, and he backed out of the assurance, telling the House he had changed his mind. But the right hon. Gentleman is a student of ethics, and he knows perfectly well that there is the widest difference in the world between a broken promise and an altered intention. The right hon. Gentleman may alter his intention a thousand times a-day if he is only affected; but he has no right to break a pledge solemnly given to this House. This, Mr. Courtney, is the man to whoso tender mercies we are to be subjected during the nest winter. I do not care to attack subordinates, but to put the blame upon what I think are the right shoulders. What are the complaints I have to make against the light hon. Gentleman? I have to complain, that he is ignorant of Ireland, and is resolved to remain ignorant; that he discharges some of the most delicate of his duties through an incompetent and blundering deputy; that he has not treated the Irish Representatives in this House with courtesy, but, on the contrary, with studied discourtesy; and that he has shamelessly broken a pledge solemnly given in this House. These are my charges. I think they are plain and patent to everyone. I think that the Members of this Committee ought closely to take them into their consideration, to weigh each one of them separately, and then, putting them all together, to estimate their cumulative force. If they do that, I am persuaded that they will arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies the position of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and who has the liberties of the people of Ireland, and of the Representatives of the people of Ireland, absolutely in his hands, has not earned, and is not likely to earn, and does not deserve the salary granted by the House of Commons to the Irish Chief Secretary for the discharge of definite and well-defined duties.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not know that I should have thought it worth while to occupy the time of the Committee by replying to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's County (Mr. W. A. Macdonald) if I did not feel that the hon. Gentleman has done a little more than repeat, in his own language—language, I am bound to say, not at all more extraordinary and extravagant—accusations which have been made against me not only to-night, but on other occasions, by many hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway opposite. The hon. Member has drawn comparisons between myself and my Predecessors in Office, certainly not at all to my advantage. But my recollection goes back, as that of the hon. Gentleman does not, to the period of Office of all the Chief Secretaries of whom he he has spoken, and I perfectly well remember that at the moment when each of these Gentlemen happened to be in Office he was the unfortunate recipient of abuse not less virulent than any which has been levelled against me to-night and on previous occasions. In fact, a not inconsiderable modicum of invective is as much an appanage of the Office I hold—and I am bound to say is paid in a much more liberal measure and not less punctually—as the legitimate and legal emoluments of that Office, and is paid regularly to every successive occupant of that Office. I admit there may be some change in the peculiar epithets employed—the abuse is transferred from one shoulder to another with just as much alteration as will make it fit the new occupant of the Office. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have always a large stock of epithets at their command, and they have simply given to their remarks a little local colouring to prevent them being a mere tame repetition of the invectives levelled against my Predecessors. I really am surprised at some of the comparisons the hon. Gentleman has drawn. He has compared me very unfavourably with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman). Now, it is one of the chief accusations levelled against me, that I am not intimately acquainted with Irish affairs. That is exactly the accusation which was directed, certainly with no less force, against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs, and yet the right hon. Gentleman has been described to-night by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as, perhaps, the best Irish Secretary there has been. Then there is the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan). The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) has heaped eulogies on the head of that right hon. Gentleman. There is more joy amongst hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway over that right hon. Gentleman who has repented than there is over all the 232 just Gladstonians who need no repentance. But I perfectly well recollect the time when that right hon. Gentleman was the daily recipient of the assaults of hon. Gentlemen, when he visibly grew older and iller under the daily assaults made upon him; when there was no accusation too vile to be levelled against him; and when even what are regarded in the minds of hon. Gentlemen as the vices of Mr. Forster showed white against the dark background of the iniquities of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow. But what, after all, do these accusations amount to? That they are part of the business of hon. Gentlemen I quite admit. They would not be supposed to be doing their duty by their constituents unless they periodically came to this House and attacked the Chief Secretary for Ireland. They would be supposed to be becoming lax in the performance of their functions as members of the Nationalist Party if they did not make the Irish Executive, and especially the person who is responsible for the Irish Executive, the daily object of their animadversions. But when I come to an analysis of the particular accusations made against me I find they chiefly consist in this. Firstly, that I have not visited Ireland very frequently during the period I have been in Office; and, secondly, that I have during part of my tenure of Office requested my right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel King-Harman) to deal with the Questions put down on the Paper at Question time. As to the first accusation—namely, that I have not visited Ireland very much—I submit to the House that since I have become Irish Secretary there has scarcely been a single night on which Irish Business has not been the chief Business of the night. Therefore it hardly lies in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen, whose other accusation is that I neglect my Parliamentary duties, to say that I do not sufficiently neglect my Parliamentary duties by making visits to Phoenix Park. As a matter of fact, there has not been a period of four or five days free from Irish Business while I have been in Office in which I have not visited Ireland. I think I may now leave that accusation, which, I believe, is only made use of by hon. Members to fill up their speeches, and I come to one on which they have more frequently dilated in this House—namely, the accusation that my right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel King-Harman) has been good enough to largely assist me in the matter of answering Questions in this House. Has it ever occurred to hon. Gentlemen to ask themselves what the functions are or ought to be in this House of an Under Secretary? I presume it is to take a part of the Parliamentary work off his official Chief. What part of the work ought to be thus taken off by him from the shoulders of his Chief? It certainly ought to be that which involves the least official responsibility, and there can be no doubt that Questions are at once that part of Parliamentary work which involves the least responsibility, and that part which, undertaken by an Under Secretary, affords the greatest relief which is possible to his official Chief. Do hon. Gentlemen realize what Questions are? The majority of the Questions asked in this House, and especially the majority of Irish Questions, are simply demands for local information, as to what may happen to a particular policeman, or a particular magistrate, or to some other particular individual in some locality in Ireland. These Questions are answered necessarily and avowedly from information derived from Ireland on the spot. Therefore, so far as Questions are concerned—I mean local Questions, Questions for local information—the Minister who answers them has really and absolutely no other function than to give the House the information which he is able to derive from the official source open to him on the spot. I am utterly unable to conceive any Parliamentary duty of less difficulty or entailing less responsibility than that which I have just described. I perfectly admit that there are some Questions of a more particular nature. All Questions presenting the slightest difficulty and involving any questions of policy are talked over by my right hon. and gallant Friend and myself, and we decide together, and I am responsible for the answers that are given in this House. I heard one hon. Gentleman say that the Parliamentary Under Secretary (Colonel King-Harman) reads his answers. Well, of course he reads his answers; every Minister reads his answers; the answers dealing with details are read and ought to be read in this House. It may be that the Under Secretary does not always give all the information hon. Members desire; but I can only say that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gives them all the information at the disposal of the Irish Office, and were I in the House it would be quite impossible, from the very nature f the case, to give more information than is given by my right hon. and gallant Friend. I make it an invariable practice—a practice which, I think, I have only departed from on one day owing to official business—to be in the House at the end of Question time; and any Questions put to me in regard to policy, and which are not down upon the Paper, I am always ready to answer. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen whether I do not always do my best to answer such Questions efficiently? Having pointed out exactly what the functions are which I have asked my right hon. and gallant Friend to discharge in this House, may I, without being egotistical, ask the Committee to consider what are the duties I have myself to undertake in this House? Hon. Gentlemen have drawn a comparison, as I said before, between me and my Predecessors in Office. I have no desire to measure myself against those Gentlemen as regards qualifications for the Office; that is not my business; but I say this with absolute confidence—that no Irish Secretary has ever had to conduct, in the same space of time, so large and difficult an amount of Irish Business in this House as I have had. Since I came into Office in March, I have been the Minister responsible for the preparation and for the conduct in this House of two enormous Bills—the Criminal Law Amendment Bill and the Irish Land Bill. These Bills have taken up almost the whole time of the House since I came into Office. It would be in vain for anyone to search the records of any previous Chief Secretary to find any occasion upon which a Chief Secretary has been responsible for two great Irish Bills which have occupied anything like the same amount of Parliamentary time. I do not wish to dwell upon this point—it is, perhaps, a rather egotistical one. But let me ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to cast their minds back to the great Irish Bills that have previously occupied the attention of Parliament. What are they? The two greatest that I can recollect have been the Land Bill of 1881 and the Crimes Bill of 1882. Neither the Land Bill of 1881 nor the Crimes Bill of 1882 were in charge of the Chief Secretary of to-day. The Land Act of 1881 was in charge of the Prime Minister, and the Crimes Act of 1882 was in charge of the then Home Secretary; but I have had charge of the two great Bills—the Land Act and the Crimes Act—both of which have been carried this year. Well, Sir, this is all I think it is necessary to say to the Committee in reply to the innumerable attacks which have been made on my conduct since I took Office. I consider the facts I have sketched to the Committee an ample vindication of all I have done. I have, it is true, divided between my right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel King-Harman) and myself some of the great burden of Parliamentary work which has been thrown upon the Office. I have asked him to undertake the easiest and least responsible—incomparably the least responsible—part of the work, and I have reserved for myself the most difficult and responsible part of the work. I hope I shall not hear from any impartial person any more of the absurd accusation that I have in any way shirked or scamped the Parliamentary work.

MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)

The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has gone the length of saying he has given more attention to the conduct of Irish Business during this Session than any previous Chief Secretary for Ireland has ever given in a Session. Now, that is a statement I altogether traverse, for I maintain that, so far from it being true, the right hon. Gentleman has given less of his time and attention to the conduct of Irish Business in this House than any of the Chief Secretaries in the last six years have given. He has spoken of the Land Act of 1881, and of the Coercion Act of 1881. He seems to forget that there was a Crimes Bill, as well as a Land Bill, passed in 1881; that the conduct of the Crimes Bill devolved upon the late Mr. W. E. Forster, and that that right hon. Gentleman had a considerable share in conducting the Land Bill of 1881, which was an infinitely more important measure than the Land Bill which has just been passed. So far as I have observed the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman this Session, he was conspicuous by his absence from this House during the passage of the Crimes Bill. I should like to know where he is during Question time? Does he want us to imagine that he does not scamp the answering of Questions in this House? The conduct of the Crimes Bill practically devolved on Mr. Justice Holmes, then the Attorney General for Ireland, and the Attorney General for England. I do not believe the Chief Secretary himself made more than a dozen speeches on the Bill during the whole of its progress through the House. Contrast his action with that of Mr. Forster in 1881. Mr. Forster spoke dozens of times every night.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

That was a Bill of one clause.

MR. M. J. KENNY

I am speaking of the Bill for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, which consisted of many clauses, and occupied more than two months of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seems to think that he has done extremely well under the circumstances; but we complain that, so far from having done well, he has gone beyond all other Chief Secretaries, and has added to other defects a flippancy of manner, and a general demeanour of insolence towards the Irish Members—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member must withdraw that expression.

MR. M. J. KENNY

I meant apparent, Sir.

THE CHAIRMAN

the hon. Gentleman must not trifle with the House in this manner.

MR. M. J. KENNY

I obey your ruling at once, Mr. Courtney. We have here an evidence of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman conducts his Business in this House; and though we may be precluded by the Rules of the House from giving expression to what we feel on the subject, we will never miss an opportunity, outside this House, of stating our opinions in regard to the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman discharges his duties, and in regard to the manner in which he acts towards Irish Members. I have condemned the right hon. Gentleman's inattention to the Business of this House. I have shown that he has differed in his course of action from all previous Chief Secretaries. Other Chief Secretaries before his time have been at least careful to attend in their places in order to hear and answer Questions addressed to him by the Irish Members. They did not act upon the miserable plea that the Questions addressed to them were of a local character. They did not declare themselves, as he declares himself, or as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet shows himself, the mere mouthpiece of the police. I have mentioned cases of previous Chief Secretaries, which stand in extraordinary contrast to the case of the present Chief Secretary. I have reminded the Committee of the course of action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan)—whom we of course criticized as we criticize the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour), and as we shall criticize every Chief Secretary so long as they continue to act in the manner in which they have acted for years past—and I have drawn a comparison between that right hon. Gentleman and the Member for East Manchester. Why we particularly complain of the latter is that he is an aggravation of everything most disagreeable in previous Chief Secretaries, On many occasions we criticized the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bridgeton Division; but he, at least, did not consent to make himself a mere mouthpiece of the police. He frequently instituted independent inquiries when he had reason to suspect that the answers of the magistrates, and the police, and other officials were faulty, and not to be depended upon. It may be all very well to sneer at Questions with regard to magistrates and the police; but it must be borne in mind that the magistrates and the police are the real governors in Ireland. It is the magistrates and the police who have, at the present time, and who have had for a dozen years past, the lives and liberties of Irishmen in their hands. [Laughter.] It is all very well for the Chief Secretary to laugh at that. Those persons are not less important in Ireland, in. their localities, and are not less capable of doing mischief, even than the right hon. Gentleman himself. Now, I should not have referred to the attitude and the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in his capacity of Chief Secretary if he had not got up in his place and attempted, in a very lame fashion, to defend his attitude and conduct. He has, in his defence, particularly in regard to his want of attention to Questions in this House, stated that there is less responsibility attaching to the matter of replying to Questions put in the House than to any other branch of the business of Chief Secretary. Now, I traverse that statement. There are in this House three Ministers responsible for one Department. I have never noticed that the Secretary of State for War sends a substitute to answer a serious Question in regard to the War Department. The Secretary for War is always in his place, and previous Secretaries for War have always been in their places when Questions were put. Then, again, the Home Secretary is always in his place, not only the present Home Secretary, but previous Home Secretaries; and when their subordinates have come forward to answer Questions they have always done so with an apology—they have always asked permission to answer the Question. The present Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland, however, whenever a Question is addressed to the Chief Secretary, rushes up to the Table, and without an apology or anything of the kind proceeds to read out his reply. I am glad to sea that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary is in his place. He has this advantage over the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—namely, that he has some slight knowledge of Irish affairs. There is a question I wish to put to him, and I trust that he will do me the honour to answer it. I will not put it to the Chief Secretary, as probably it will relate to a subject about which he knows nothing. It arises under this Vote, and it is with reference to the manner in which the Veterinary Inspectors' Department in Dublin Castle is managed. There have been Reports supplied to that Department from time to time with regard to the prevalence of pleuro-pneumonia in Ireland. The Reports go to prove that the disease continues not only to exist, but even to grow in intensity in the neighbourhood of the City of Dublin. Now, that is a very serious question for persons engaged in the Irish cattle trade; because, in consequence, restrictions frequently have to be enforced—the export of Irish cattle from the Port of Dublin—and the result is that the English and Irish dealers are afraid to purchase Irish cattle, lest they should infect healthy cattle in England and Scotland. Now we have had. Reports supplied to us this year, and we have had Reports supplied to us for the past two or three years on this subject; and though the allegation is that efforts are being made to cope with this disease, that still the authorities are unable to prevent its growth. Well, those Veterinary Inspectors are the persons on whom the duty principally devolves of checking the growth of this disease. These Veterinary Inspectors are armed with considerable powers under the Act of 1878, and it remains mainly with the Boards of Guardians to put in force the remaining powers of the Act in order to set it thoroughly in operation. These Boards of Guardians are bodies in the North and South Dublin Unions upon whom pressure could easily be brought to bear by the Chief Secretary, if he chose to exercise his authority. It is said, however, that greater powers should be placed in the Veterinary Department, in order to enable them to stamp out this disease. The stamping out of the disease can only be brought about by slaughtering the cattle under the Act of 1878, and going to the expense of compensating the owners for the cattle destroyed. Surely it is more desirable to go to that expense than to let the disease continue to exist, inflicting, as it does, enormous damage to the general cattle trade in Ireland. I want to know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant will devote his attention to this question, and see if a very short Bill cannot be passed through this House for giving the further powers required to enable the Veterinary Inspectors to order the compulsory slaughter of cattle infected by this disease in the neighbourhood of Dublin and other parts of Ireland—to enable them to stamp out a disease which is doing an incalculable amount of damage in Ireland? Probably this is too small a matter for the exalted mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to deal with; but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary knows something about Dublin, and may probably be aware of the trouble and loss consequent upon this disease, and I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to distinguish his term of Office by, at least, one useful act. I would ask him to do what he can to enable the Veterinary Inspectors to stamp out this disease which is doing so much harm.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.)

There is one thing quite certain in connection with this discussion, whatever may be doubtful in it, and that is that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland hap a comfortable opinion of himself. Well, Sir, I do not feel much concerned to dispute it. After having heard his eloquent and, to his own mind, conclusive account of his extraordinary qualifications for the Office which he happens to fill at present, I turn with some surprise to a statement which he made at an earlier period of the evening, to the effect that he received valuable assistance and advice from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I should have thought that a statesman so rarely qualified to fill an official position as he describes himself to be would not be content to fall back for assistance and advice on so ordinary a politician as the Lord Lieutenant. I differ entirely from the right hon. Gentleman as to the importance to us and to our country of receiving, when we put Questions in this House, answers from the Minister who is directly responsible for the affairs of Ireland. We cannot, Sir, bring in Bills and bring forward Motions when we please. As we are situated, the method of interrogation is the readiest and most effective method we can avail ourselves of for endeavouring to right our grievances. It is by putting Questions from day to day that we are able to challenge in this House the action of Irish officials, from the Judge himself down to the lowest constable. But it is necessary for the satisfaction of our grievances that the answers on this subject should be given by a Minister, who, being a Member of the Cabinet and one of the immediate Advisers of the Crown, is in a position to state with authority what policy will be pursued by the Government. I have often heard the Parliamentary Under Secretary lumbering through his replies in this House. I do not quarrel with the information which dictates his replies, because whoever answers a Question the information must be the same; but I do object to having Questions, not only as to matters of fact, but as to matters of policy, constantly answered in the House by a Minister who so often excuses himself from giving answers on Questions of policy on the plea that they do not come within the range of his Office. It is reducing the practice of questioning to a nullity and a farce, so far as the public are concerned, if a Minister is able to plead that he is not vested with that responsibility which enables him to give a complete answer. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary excuses himself for not giving answers with regard to what is going on in Ireland by stating that he has to attend to his duties here, and that they take up so much of his time that he is not able to attend to those in Ireland. Well, Sir, we complain that he does not attend to his duties, and also that he does not take pains to inform himself as to what is going on in Ireland. I have often noticed the picturesque form of the right hon. Gentleman behind that wooden arrangement at the Speaker's back, carefully waiting until Question time is over before presenting himself. I have noticed how he has waited until the Speaker has announced that "the Clerk of the House will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day," and until the first Order has been read out, before attending in his place on the Front Ministerial Bench. Well, Sir, in my opinion, that is a gross malfeasance of duty; and no degree of self-assertion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman can gloss over the fact that he constantly and by habit evades the performance of that duty which has been regarded by his Predecessors as their principal duty. It happens that past Chief Secretaries have been converted by the Questions which have been put to them, and by the knowledge they have derived of the condition of things existing in Ireland. I believe that almost every Gentleman who now occupies a seat in this House—except the right hon. Gentleman himself—who has occupied the post of Chief Secretary, has, by the force of his official experience, become converted in his views as to the proper course to be pursued in Ireland. Those right hon. Gentlemen, as, indeed, most people in this country, have come to look with favour upon Irish agitators, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite is mistaken if he thinks that the altered feeling with regard to Irish National Leaders is peculiar to Irish Members at present in the House. He will find Daniel O'Connell and Mr. Isaac Butt, for whom he has no better names than murderers, occupying at this moment prominent places in your galleries of celebrities, and the time may come when he may admire and when this country may bestow similar honourable distinction upon us. Judging from the changes of mind that English Governments have gone through with regard to successive generations of Irish politicians, I think that if another few years should happen to pass before the Irish militant case is closed in triumph, that they may find amongst Irish politicians of later days that even my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) is a moderate and polite agitator. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) finds fault with us on the ground that we have not a sympathetic perception of the good qualities of our political opponents. Well, Sir, in the remarks I am now about to address to the Committee, I shall not attempt to deal with politics so much as with facts. I think the moment has come when we must challenge the Minister responsible for the affairs of Ireland to offer such explanation as he can of the use the Irish Executive have made of the powers vested in them under the 5th section of the Coercion Act of this year. The Committee will observe that it is necessary under the Act, not only that crime should prevail in any district that is proclaimed, but also that that crime should have attached to it the character of outrage. Now, it is under the guarantee of the language of this clause that the House passed the Coercion Act. We were assured that the Lord Lieutenant would take the advice of the Privy Council, and that the section would only be applied to districts in Ireland where the powers conveyed by the Proclamation were necessary for the detection, prevention, and punishment of crime and outrage. It was declared by Ministers in this House from time to time that the complexion of outrage should be attached to the crimes proclaimed. I could quote many of these utterances; but will content myself with referring to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary during the progress of the debates on the Crimes Bill on the 27th of June, He said— We hope that the area of Ireland over which it will ever be necessary to use it will be but a small part of the country; we hope that for years together it may he possible to allow the Bill to remain quiescent."—(3 Hansard, [316] 1068.) What I have to ask, in the first instance, is this—what has occurred in the condition of Ireland since the 27th of June to entitle the right hon. Gentleman to abandon that hope, and to depart from the line of policy which the expression of that hope entitled the House to expect? Now, the Coercion Act passed into law and received the Queen's Assent on the 19th of July. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who, four weeks before, had expressed the hope that for many years the Bill would remain quiescent, and would never be applied except to a small part of Ireland, two days after the Bill received the Royal Assent apparently changed his opinion, and sped to Dublin. He did not even wait for a copy of the Act. I think it was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) who pointed out on a previous occasion that when the Lord Lieutenant proceeded under the 5th clause to apply the drastic powers of the Act, the majority of the people of Ireland had not before them a copy of the Statute, as none had been issued by the public Press. The right hon. Gentleman did not consult the Lord Lieutenant or the Privy Council when he arrived in Ireland, but retired to his Lodge in Phoenix Park. He saw in private some magistrates—he was guilty of the un-Constitutional course of consulting in private, with regard to the suspension of the liberties of the people, a number of magistrates who will afterwards in the course of their duty have to deal with, and perhaps send to prison, the very men with regard to whom the powers given under the Proclamation is to be applied. The magistrates are first consulted as to whether a certain organization and certain individuals shall be brought within the provisions of the special Criminal Law; and these gentlemen having given the advice that the ordinary law ought to be suspended, and that the special Criminal Law ought to be applied—those men with whom he has consulted in his Star Chamber at Phœnix Park are to be the very men to administer justice under that Act. That evening, Sir, determined the liberties of the people of Ireland. When Friday evening came the right hon. Gentleman had determined to put Ireland outside the pale of the Constitution. Why, Sir, we are living under a personal Government. Talk of the Government of the Queen, talk of the Three Estates of the Realm, they have no existence for us! The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary exercises a power as absolute as any Pasha in Turkey or any Mandarin in China. On the Saturday the Lord Lieutenant arrived in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman said he consulted him; but the Lord Lieutenant spent Friday night tossing in the Channel. The right hon. Gentleman says he saw him on Saturday morning at 12 o'clock, and not only met him, but got his opinion and advice; but will the right hon. Gentleman say that any advice he got from the Lord Lieutenant had any effect upon the decision which he and his sbirri had arrived at? Now, the Privy Council consists of 50 persons, but only 11 Members out of the 50 were present when the Proclamation was issued. There was the right hon. Gentleman himself as Dictator—there was the Lord Lieutenant who played into his hands, and the Commander of the Forces, Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, a polite and gallant gentleman who, whenever he goes into the society of ladies suspected of National sympathies, excuses himself for having signed the Proclamation. We know, of course, that the Commander of the Forces, very properly considering his profession, is nothing if not a soldier. I would go further and say he is a soldier, and nothing else. He cares nothing for public life, but he is bound to obey the orders received from others. There were four other Members of the Privy Council present—four Tory lawyers—namely, the Chancellor, the Ex-Chancellor, Dr. Ball, the Vice Chancellor, and Mr. Justice Monroe, four gentlemen who have climbed to dignity, emolument, and power by political services rendered to the Party opposite. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland told us on the 15th June that the Judges were never consulted; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland want further, for he told us that there was no consultation on this occasion, and he added, moreover, this very curious phrase—that "when a matter of this kind is brought forward it is never debated;" Judges were there to give solemnity to him. Surely even the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that the Chief Secretary is solemn enough for anyone, and that he wants no judicial aid to make him more funereal than nature has already made him. These four Judges were there, and we are asked to believe that these four judicial persons and the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary sat for two hours round that Table, that they said nothing to the Chief Secretary, that the Chief Secretary said nothing to the Lord Lieutenant, and that they said nothing to one another. [An hon. MEMBER: They were mutes!] Yes; we are asked to believe that they were mutes at the funeral of the League. Of course, we cannot penetrate the Privy Council Chamber, but we know what came out of it; we know what was the promise of the 27th June; but when we arrived at the 23rd July it was upon that day determined to apply the provisions of the Act to every inch of the soil of Ireland; first of all to apply the first four clauses to 18 counties of Ireland. The Committee will remember the drastic powers contained in the first four clauses; and these powers were applied on the instant to the whole Province of Munster, to the whole Province of Connaught, to half the Province of Leinster, and to two counties of the Province of Ulster. I observe, however, as a curious fact, that while the heavier Proclamation was applied to all counties that returned Nationalist Members, the lighter Proclamation was applied to those counties which returned Unionist or Tory Members. The Act says nothing about counties; it says that when the Lord Lieutenant is satisfied it is necessary for the prevention of crime and outrage he may apply the provisions of the Act to "any such district." No one can say that a district means a county. The right hon. Gentleman was challenged why he made in every case the area of Proclamation a county; and what was his reply? The Government have resolved to proclaim no smaller area than a county, because a county appears the most convenient unit for administrative purposes. Popular liberty is a more idle phrase; the phrase now is "a convenient unit." The County of Cork contains 500,000 people, and Donegal 200,000. The liberty of these men is as dear to them as to any of you. The Act declares that unless a district is in a state of crime and outrage it should not be proclaimed; but you ignore the phraseology of the Act, and proclaim a county with 500,000 people, and deprive them of the right of association, of public meeting, and of fair trial by jury, and other rights, and justify these acts by the circumstance that in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, who is a man of Oriental feeling and disposition, a county "is the most convenient unit for administrative purposes." It was easier for him on that Friday evening in his Lodge at Phœnix Park to issue one Proclamation for a county than to issue Proclamations for six districts. There are other units—a county is one, a barony is another, a half barony another, a Poor Law Union another, a Poor Law district another, and an electoral division another. But why not choose a higher unit? Why not go as high as a Province, or treat the whole of Ireland at once as a unit for administrative purposes? He goes on to say— It therefore happens that while the statistics crime for the county may seem satisfactory, they are not, since they really indicate a serious state of things in a relatively small area that calls for increased stringency in the administration of the law. What does that mean? It means that though crime may be small, the crime may be congested in a district; and therefore, though the Act speaks only of a district, you ought to proclaim the whole county. He illustrated that in reference to the case of Donegal. He said that—"Although the crime for Donegal is not considerable, the barony of Kilmacrennan is not satisfactory." I turn to the record of crime for the quarter ending June—that is to say, I turn to the record that must have been before the right hon. Gentleman himself when he determined to proclaim the county, in order to find, if I can, some justification or some excuse for the proclamation of the county, and I find the crime committed in the whole county for the quarter ending June was three in number. There was an incendiary fire, a threatening letter, and there was an injury to property; and I suppose, Sir, these three crimes were in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman when he said—"They indicate a serious state of things that specially calls for increased stringency." It is not even alleged that in regard to these three crimes there was a failure of justice. I have not heard anyone say they had any evidence with regard to them, or that it was forthcoming, or that there was any difficulty in procuring a conviction. The barony of Kilmacrennan is only one-sixth of Donegal; the county contains six baronies with 200,000 inhabitants; three crimes were committed in three months, and these the three months preceding the Proclamation. But the right hon. Gentleman, by his Proclamation in respect of these three crimes, decreed that from the date of the Proclamation, if any crime was committed in any part of Donegal with its 200,000 inhabitants—and observe crime is not merely felony or misdemeanour, but any of the made-up crimes introduced into the Act—if any offence technically known as crime is committed the right hon. and learned Gentleman who sits so placidly opposite, the Attorney General for Ireland, would be able to despatch two magistrates to hold a Star Chamber, to summon anyone before it, whether anyone was charged or not, to deny any witness Constitutional rights, to commit anyone to prison for an unsatisfactory answer, and to send anyone to prison from time to time at their discretion. That is the effect of applying the 1st clause. The 2nd clause was applied, and under that it is what is called a criminal conspiracy to interfere with any person with regard to the hire, or use, or occupation of laud, and other matters defined by the 2nd sub-section, and the right of trial by jury is taken away. By the application of the 3rd clause, a trial may be removed to any other county. And by the application of the 4th clause the accused person is deprived of trial by jury, and the trial of a peasant is given into the hands of 12 landlords, and of a Catholic into the hands of 12 Protestants. That is the effect of the Proclamation in County Donegal, and the only justification is that three crimes were committed in this county in three months. That is only one of the 18 counties where this happened. The other county I refer to in Ulster is the county of Monaghan. Between the date of the right hon. Gentleman's pledge on the 27th June that this Act might remain quiescent for years, between that date and the 23rd July the Summer Assizes had occurred; and did that offer any evidence in support of the right hon. Gentleman's conduct? I refer to the Assizes in the county of Monaghan. This county has been proclaimed under the first four clauses. The going Judge of Assize last month was Mr. Justice Holmes, who, as Attorney General for Ireland, piloted the Coercion Bill through this House On going Circuit, he received a pair of white gloves at the first town, and here are the words in which Mr. Justice Holmes addressed the Grand Jury— Mr. Hamilton and Gentlemen, there are two cases to go before you. The Calendar is perfectly light. In turning from these cases to those cases which have been reported to the Constabulary, the amount of cases so reported is indicative of the peaceful and prosperous state of this county. I am justified in congratulating the county on the absence of crime. Observe not merely on the lightness of the Calendar, but in regard to the lightness and condition of crime as it appeared in the Report of the police. The Chief Secretary says he is guided by the opinion of the officers of police, and no officer is better informed than the local Inspector of Police. It was on the report of that responsible officer that Mr. Justice Holmes, the pilot of the Coercion Bill, gave that account of the condition of Monaghan. As a matter of fact, they have only two offences—there was a threatening letter and an injury to property, and upon that the learned Judge so justly commented. It is in face of that just comment and just eulogy of the county that his Colleague and Co-partner in the administration of Ireland proclaimed the county of Monaghan under the first four clauses. What is the advantage of being crimeless in Ireland? Virtue may be its own reward; but we might have expected from the Constitutional Rulers some better reward than this, and I say that in presence of a blank Calendar, and almost a blank Police Report, they might have been saved the indignity that has been showered on their heads. The right hon. Gentleman said that no county had been proclaimed except for crime or intimidation, and before I pass from the subject of crime let me refer to the Report for the quarter ending June. Taking out threatening letters the Report shows the total number of agrarian offences in all Ireland to have been 131. In four counties there was no crime, in nine counties there was one crime each, in three counties there were two crimes each, and in four counties three crimes each. There you have a condition, of absolute crimelessness or nominal crime in 20 counties in Ireland. Yet this condition of crimelessness did not save them from the suspension and withdrawal of all the guarantees of the English Constitution. The right hon. Gentleman said that counties had been proclaimed for intimidation, and in respect of intimidation our pressure on the Government and repeated accusations has revealed the fact that they found themselves entirely upon the Return of Boycotting and persons protected by the police. Now, Sir, I denounce the Return of Boycotting and police protection as an immoral contrivance. I attach no weight to it, and I appeal to the Committee and to the public to do the same. Let me ask the Committee to say whether, if the meanest man in Britain was on his trial, would you ask any magistrate to convict that man on evidence which denied to the consideration of the magistrate or the jury those weapons of evidence which are held to be essential to the establishment of the lightest allegation of crime? We have columns of figures here; we are told there are so many people Boycotted in one county and so many protected by the police in another. The Committee have not forgotten the pungent and conclusive speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo last night. He pointed out that Boycotting was a money-making trade in Ireland, and broken-down farmers and others are glad to be Boycotted and protected by the police in order that they may lodge the police and charge the Government a rack-rent and give no abatement upon it; they supply the police with provisions, goods, and sometimes luxuries, and the bill is paid by the Government without a murmur and without inquiry. These persons who are said to be Boycotted are better off under the Boycotting system than ever they were before or ever hope to be again in their lives. The Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland challenged me last night on a contention as to a matter of fact, and the contention has been left out of The Times; but curiously enough, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Longford has observed, when a statement is made that is damaging to the Parliamentary Undersecretary it does not appear in The Times next morning. What I say is, that we are entitled to have the names of these persons who are Boycotted and protected. I pointed out to the Government that the condition of Boycotting and police protection is invariably conducted with such publicity that no injury can be done to the person affected by announcing his name and address. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo went further, and justly so, as he took a keener view of the case than I did, and he pointed out clearly that Boycotting and police protection involved absolute publicity, and that if the Government went further and gave the names, that might afford these Boycotted persons a measure of sympathy of which they were at present destitute. [An hon. MEMBER: The Curtins, for instance.] As an hon. Friend remarks, there was the example of the Curtin case. The case was published in The Times and other English newspapers, with the result that a subscription was started, a liberal sum was collected, and the Curtin family received favour and sympathy which they would never have had but for the publicity that was given to their case. Even the originator of the name, Captain Boycott, received thousands of pounds in consequence of the publicity his case met with; therefore, why should the Government, upon this delusive plea that secrecy is necessary, refuse to us the names of these people, and, at the same time, refuse to these people the sympathy and help that would be given from various parts of the United Kingdom, if the circumstances of the case should reveal that they were suffering hardship? The Parliamentary Under Secretary denied that he said that persons who received constant protection from the police are always protected by them.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Colonel KING-HARMAN) () Kent, Isle of Thanet

No.

MR. SEXTON

This is getting complicated. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman denied it last night, and now he denies that he denied it last night.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

I will state what I stated twice last night. I said that entire police protection meant that the persons were always protected and that in most cases they were protected in their houses; but I also stated there were many cases where the police did not live in the houses, in consequence of their being unfit to afford them habitation.

MR. SEXTON

I am entirely satisfied for that makes my case the stronger. These people then, Sir, who are under constant police protection, are always protected; the police, when the houses are good enough, live in the houses; when not good enough, they live somewhere else; therefore, the protection is matter of notoriety, and that every man, woman, and child in the district knows it. Again, I ask upon what pretence are the names and addresses of these persons refused, and the circumstances of their cases withheld? It is certainly not for the purpose of protecting them. I suppose the Rules of the House would prevent me imputing motives to the Government; but I say I believe the motive behind them is this— that this is a false case; that this is a bogus case; that these numbers do not correspond with the facts: that these people are not Boycotted; and if protected, they are protected for their own interests. There is no pretence whatever for the protection of these people. Then there are others who are protected by the presence of the police. Is it not obvious that when the police at different times in the 24 hours visit the place, that everyone in the district is familiar with the fact; and with regard to persons wholly Boycotted, is it not the very climax of absurdity to imagine they are not known? The Government tell us that persons wholly Boycotted in Ireland are persons for whom no one in their neighbourhood will work, supply goods to, or have any intercourse with; therefore we have set before us by the Government the picture of a man in Ireland living in a state of moral and physical assassination, for no one will have any intercourse with him, or do anything for him. I very much doubt if such a state of things exists with regard to a tithe of the persons mentioned; but, suppose it does, why not tell us where it is? If no one in the district will speak to a person, everyone in the district must know it, and therefore the thing cannot be more public than it is. The only reason the facts are withheld from the Irish Members here is that if you stated it you would knock the bottom out of your vicious case. There are then the people who are partially Boycotted; they are not altogether unable to buy necessaries; they find someone to bow to them, or to speak to them, and to buy from or sell to; but surely that constitutes a condition of notorious publicity. If everyone knows that to be the fact, there is a condition of absolute notoriety as between the persons who will talk to them and to those who will not. I say that never in the history of the world before did any Constitutional Ministry, on such a monstrous plea, take away the liberties of the people. This Return is not worth the paper it is printed on; it is as false as it is foolish. Note that this is the kind of evidence on which the people are being outlawed in 18 counties in Ireland. Almost empty Calendars, empty Police Reports, and anonymous Returns of Boycotting and police protection; and upon that kind of fabricated evidence, manufactured by your instruments, you have denied to 18 counties in Ireland the right of open fiat, instituted the Star Chamber amongst them, and enabled two of your paid servants to send anyone for six months to gaol for delivering a speech to the people upon political affairs. A man has a right in England to combine with his fellows not to work for a person they regard as an enemy, to conserve to themselves their means of living—if you interfered with them as you have done in Ireland, they would tumble you head-over-heels off that Bench in 24 hours; but if anyone in Ireland did these things, any two of your servants who draw their salaries by your favour, who live by your favour, may send these people for six months, with hard labour, to prison for doing what is jealously and strictly guarded by the Constitution in England. Well, these 18 counties are not only denied all this, as I have said, but the people, for offences under this Act, are denied trial by a jury of their peers; they are to be tried by a special jury, and may be removed to any other place in Ireland. And why is this? I ask the Attorney General for Ireland if it has been alleged on the part of the Government that in these 18 counties evidence has been withheld; has it been alleged by your Crown prosecutors or agents that evidence has been withheld; has it been said that people had evidence, and failed to come before the tribunals? I am able to say, from the Returns of agrarian offences, that these offences are mostly slight in their nature; they are divided between incendiary fires, injury to property, writing threatening letters, and firing into dwellings. These offences are committed in the dead of night, in lonely places; there is no one in the teeming population who is aware of the offence, and you take care they shall not be. I say evidence has not been withheld. We are sometimes told that mutilation of animals is an offence peculiar to Ireland, and there are reasons which account for this in Ireland. But I have here some Returns of crime in England for the year 1885, and I find that there were 33 cases of mutilation of animals. Now, in the case of Ireland, you appear to think that unless a criminal is brought to justice for every crime there is something wrong in the social state of the country. Now, of these 33 cases of mutilation of animals in England, how many convictions were there? Would anyone like to guess? There were 33 crimes, and nine convictions. It is, as I said before, owing to the secret nature of the crimes, although everyone is anxious to give evidence, and to bring the criminals to justice, it is extremely difficult to obtain a conviction, and the failure to obtain a conviction is not an offence to be denounced against a whole people. As I am speaking of England, I may say that the number of cases of cruelty to animals in 1885 was nearly 8,000. I am not anxious to make these comparisons; bat they are thrust upon us. Those offences, when they occur in Ireland, are spoken of as an indignity and an insult, as if there were no such offences anywhere else. In Ireland, there were 240 acquittals and 1,260 committals for cruelty to animals. And why? Because these things take place in open day. When an offence is committed in Ireland in the presence of people who can give evidence, it is as easy to obtain a conviction as anywhere else. Does the Attorney General say that juries fail in their duty?[The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Gibson) (Liverpool, Walton) assented.] He does. I challenged him the other day, and he returned an answer which, while it professed to exhibit a certain opinion in his mind, denied any facilities for testing the truth of that opinion. I asked him, in regard to the Summer Assizes, whether any Assizes had been adjourned or cases postponed because of the failure of juries to perform their duty? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had to deal with 32 counties; and he mentioned Clare and Kerry, where two or three cases had been postponed because the Judge was not satisfied; and he referred to one or two cases in a third county, but he did not state the cases. Now, treating the cases of the right hon. and learned Gentleman as good, what becomes of them? In two counties there were two or three postponements, and in a third county there was one case. But does a jury always obey a Judge in England? When a Judge in England indicates that, in his opinion, a prisoner is guilty, is a verdict of guilty always returned by the jury? Not at all. The right of juries to differ from the Judges is the principal reason for their existence. If a jury is always expected to agree with a Judge, why do you want your juries at all? Would it not be much more convenient, and a great saving of public time, if you simply confined the trial of every criminal case to the Judge alone? I cannot discover on what ground otherwise juries are to be condemned. Very often a jury in England which differs from a Judge is eulogized as a public benefactor; but in Ireland whenever a jury ventures to differ from a Judge—however lurid a light the past career of the Judge may cast upon his antecedents, however recently he may have been Grown Prosecutor, he may be a disappointed Home Ruler; but, no matter what he is, we may have refused him a seat on this side of the House—no sooner, I say, does a Judge find fault with the verdict of a jury, than that is made the basis of an outcry in the Press of this country against the Irish people. There is no case—either in regard to withholding of evidence, or to the conduct of witnesses or juries—which entitles you to come down to any one of these 18 counties, and to take upon yourselves the power to change the venue, or to take trials out of the hands of common juries, and put them in the hands of special juries. I doubt if you can bring forward one solitary case to that effect at any of the Summer Assizes, and I am absolutely certain you cannot establish the shadow of a case to give you any ground for the action you have taken. I do not think this Committee is aware of the fact—and it is an undoubted fact—that convictions in criminal cases in Ireland have not been facilitated by coercion. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General for Ireland) think they have? I have no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite think that, while it is difficult to obtain a conviction in criminal cases in Ireland under the ordinary law, you will obtain them with greater facility under a system of coercion. I shall prove the contrary in five minutes. In the year 1881 you had a Coercion Act in Ireland— the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act. It gave you great facilities for the discovery of evidence, because it enabled you to arrest any man without a warrant and without charge, and to keep him in gaol as long as you liked. What was the result that year? For every 21 agrarian offences committed you had only one conviction, and in nine-tenths of the cases there was no one made amenable to justice. In 1882 you had two Coercion Acts running tandem—you had Mr. Forster's Act up to December 30, and you had the Crimes Act of 1882, from the 12th July. No one needs to be reminded of the power of the Act of 1882. They were powers of an extraordinary character and of extraordinary rigour, not only enabling the Attorney General to change the place of trial, and to conduct trials before a Commission of three Judges, instead of before a jury, but empowering the police to arrest all persons found abroad after sunset and before sunrise, and enabling a blood tax to be levied on a district, not only on account of extra police employed, but also on account of compensation to anyone injured. If any Act for the repression and prevention of crime could have been effectual, the Code embodied in that Act would have been effectual. Now, in this year of two Coercion Acts, you had only one conviction for every 24 agrarian offences. You are always saying two things. First, that coercion vindicates justice and brings guilty men to the gallows and to the gaol; and, secondly, that Leagues are stained with blood, that they are the producers of crime, and that where they exist it is impossible to vindicate justice. I will prove the falsehood of both these statements. In 1881 you had one conviction to every 21 agrarian offences; in 1882 you had only one to every 24. Passing on for a couple of years, and coming to 1884, when you had a Crimes Act still in operation, the convictions were one in 21, and in nine-tenths of the cases no person was made amenable to justice In 1883 you had a Coercion Act in force up to August, and there was one conviction to every 18 cases. For the 15 months following up to March last you had no Coercion Act. You had a public League, and the convictions were one in 18 cases; and if, as was the case in 1881 in nine-tenths of the cases, no one had been made amenable to justice, the number of these cases would have been 1,107, whereas it was only 1,103. Therefore I have conclusively proved my case; and I would ask the Attorney General for Ireland to disprove, if he can, my two assertions—that convictions have been more numerous when Ireland was not coerced, and when public Leagues existed, and that they have been less numerous under the Coercion Acts of 1881 and 1882. Now, I will refer for a moment to a secondary matter—namely, the 14 remaining counties in Ireland, which were proclaimed under the 2nd section of the Coercion Act of this year, which deals with "forcible opposition, and assaults upon ministers of the law," as they are called. When the Chief Secretary for Ireland was questioned as to why he proclaimed these 14 counties, he said that these provisions ought to be part of the general law. But that was not what he said when he was passing the Bill through this House. On the 27th of June he said he hoped that "for years to come the Bill would remain quiescent." [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: What?] That "for years to come he hoped the Bill would remain quiescent." He said— We hope that the area of Ireland over which it will ever be necessary to use it will be but a small part of the country. We hope that for years together it may be possible to allow the Bill to remain quiescent."—(3 Hansard, [316] 1068.) [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] What has happened since to disturb that hope? Has the condition of Ireland grown worse? Has crime increased? Is the condition of Ireland more disturbed than in June? What about the Summer Assizes? Why, on all former occasions of the application of coercion, and the passing of coercion measures through this House, the staple of the arguments of the Government was comprised in quotations from Her Majesty's Judges. They were given by the foot and by the yard. Can you quote a majority of the Judges now? I defy you to quote more than one, and he is a Judge who is now the agent of those who sit on that side of the House, because we would not allow him to sit on this side of the House. Now the hope of the 27th of June has vanished into thin air. The Bill was to remain quiescent.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Will the hon. Member read the words? I said I hoped that for years together it might not be necessary to use the Bill. I did not specify the exact period during which, the Bill would not be used.

MR. SEXTON

Well, Sir, I can only say that if that be the method of interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman wishes the British public to accept, he had better for the future bring his speeches before the British public accompanied and fortified with a glossary. Could anyone have imagined the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman now wishes us to put upon his words— We hope that the area of Ireland over which it will ever be necessary to use it will be but a small part of Ireland. We hope that for many years together it may be possible to allow the Bill to remain quiescent. Could anyone have imagined that the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman was not that for years to come the Bill should not be used, but that the Bill should be used now, and that in the dim and distant future some year might come when the Bill should remain quiescent? [Laughter.] The Chief Secretary for Ireland is trying to look amused; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer beside him looks grave. I do not wonder at it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is more sensible and more experienced in the effect of interpretations of that character on the minds of the public at a period of contested elections. "This provision," said the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, "ought to be part of the general law." What provision? Taking away the right of trial by jury with regard to women and children who might come in the way of a constable, or with regard to a man who, in a period of excitement, might be betrayed into an assault on what is called a "minister of the law." These are the provisions to which I am now referring, and which the right hon. Gentleman says ought to be made the provisions of the general law. What would Englishmen say to a proposal that they should be made a part of the general law of England? I should like to see the sort of political meetings there would be in London, if you took away the right of trial by jury.

MR. AMBROSE (Middlesex, Harrow)

I rise to Order, Sir. I submit that the question of coercion has been settled by this House, and during this Session; and I submit, further, Sir, that it has no reference to the Vote now under discussion.

Several Irish MEMBERS

What is the Vote?

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question before the House is the salary and expenses of the Office of the Chief Secretary. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) is arraigning the action of the Chief Secretary in issuing certain Proclamations under the Crimes Act.

MR. AMBROSE

Mr. Courtney, Sir.

Several hon. MEMBERS

Order, order!

THE CHAIRMAN (continuing)

he is investigating the adequacy or the inadequacy of the grounds on which those Proclamations were issued; and, though he is doing it at very great length, I do not feel called upon to interfere.

MR. AMBROSE

Will you allow me to suggest, Sir—

Several hon. MEMBERS

Name, name !

MR. AMBROSE

Without intending for a moment, Sir, to question your ruling, may I venture to point out, with the indulgence of the House—

Several hon. MEMBERS

Name, name ! and Order!

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order ! I shall have to name hon. Members in that quarter (the Opposition Benches below the Gangway) if they do not allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to proceed.

MR. AMBEOSE

I venture to point out, Sir, that these questions have been discussed and have been settled by this House, and that whether the Chief Secretary was right or wrong his action has been endorsed by this House, and that the question of that action does not arise on the Vote under discussion. I think something is due to this House in order that our time may not be wasted by discussions which are utterly irrelevant to the Vote now before the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN

The House has undoubtedly agreed that, under certain circumstances, the Chief Secretary should act in a certain way; but it reserves to itself, at all times, the right to decide whether the Executive Government has realized the circumstances under which it may act.

MR. SEXTON

Your time may be wasted; but our liberties are destroyed. I am not surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ambrose) should be able to devote so much time to the proceedings of this House, owing to his lack of practice at the Bar.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member must be aware that remarks of that character are not at all conducive to the due despatch of Public Business.

MR. SEXTON

I accept your advice, Sir; but, according to your ruling, I have been needlessly interrupted. There can be no more properly Constitutional occasion than on the salary of a Minister to raise a question as to the policy pursued by that Minister. Well, I was speaking of the 14 counties. The Chief Secretary for Ireland said these provisions ought to be part of the general law. I call that a monstrous proposition. What makes it extraordinary, and almost incredible, is this—that these offences, in respect of which these provisions ought to be part of the general law, have not been committed in any one of these counties during the present year. Two things are indispensable to justify the Proclamation of these 14 counties. First, it must be shown that these offences have prevailed; secondly, it must be shown that the ordinary administration of the law has failed to bring the guilty persons to justice. Neither of these things has been shown. There is just one other point. The Chief Secretary has proclaimed 18 counties, and not content with that Proclamation, he proclaimed also the 10 cities in Ireland which have a separate criminal jurisdiction. Well, I will just read two or three sentences from the charges of the Judges at the Assizes in these cities last month; and I think if anything be wanted to convince the most determined Tory of the wanton and reckless spirit—a spirit of indiscriminate tyranny—in which the powers of this Act are exercised, he will find it in the few words which I am now about to quote. First, I will take Mr. Justice O'Brien in the City of Cork, and there is no Judge in Ireland who would be more ready to make a case for coercion if he could. He said— This city is absolutely and entirely free from crime. This is not the first time I have had to make the observation that the city has enjoyed, even within my own experience, an entire immunity from ordinary crime. It is a great deal to say of a city containing a population of some 60,000 or 80,000 people, and could hardly be alleged with respect to any other city of an equal population in the United Kingdom. There had been in that city no case of assault on a minister of the law during the 12 months, and the solitary case of assault at that Assizes was that against a seafearing man who had been driven into the place by the weather. Then, again, in the City of Limerick— He was glad to see the city was so prosperous and so free from crime. There were only two bills to go before them, both against the same person, and for the same offence. That was Mr. Justice O'Brien again. Then, in Waterford, Mr. Justice Harrison said— There is no criminal business to go before you. There is no case to be tried on the criminal side, and this city has been reported to me as having been free from serious crime since the last Assizes. This is a most gratifying-circumstance, and it gives me great pleasure, as I have no doubt it does you, to find such a satisfactory state of things.'' A pair of white gloves. At Kilkenny, also, a pair of white gloves; and the Judge said— It gives me great pleasure to receive this emblem of the innocence of this city. I believe that expresses the general condition of this fair City of Kilkenny, and I sincerely hope that this immunity from crime and exemplary behaviour on the part of your people will continue. At Drogheda Mr. Justice Holmes said— It was a matter of great congratulation that, on this the first occasion on which he had to preside at a Summer Assizes, he should find nothing for them to do; it was most gratifying. These are five out of the 10 cities, and I think the others would be about the same; yet every one of those cities have been proclaimed under the clauses of the Crimes Act which deal with offences which have not been committed, and which are now removed from the hands of the ordinary tribunals of the land, and placed in the hands of paid servants of the Crown. The whole policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary reveals an imbecility of wantonness. There is no case—no, not the shadow of a case. If the right hon. Gentleman possesses the gifts of prophecy, and if, relying upon them, he has deprived the people of Ireland of their Constitutional rights in the expectation that crimes will arise hereafter, then I cannot argue with him. But I say that upon the case I have made, the case of the sufficiency of the ordinary tribunals, the case of the complete absence of crime, I have exposed the hollowness and specious character of the vague and uncorroborated evidence advanced by the Government. However the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary may be able to satisfy the majority of this House, bound together by motives adverse to the public interest, I say that, when the time comes, he will meet with the condemnation he so richly deserves at the hands of the people of this country.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I will not detain the Committee very long in reply to the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton). I will not go, more than lean help, over the ground I was obliged to travel over before; but I must ask to be allowed to show the House that the case he has made will not bear examination. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) had not repeated it twice towards the close of his speech, and if his views on the subject did not seem to meet with approbation on the part of his Friends, I should not refer to one point to which I am about to allude. He asserts that I gave the House to understand, when the Crimes Act was passing through this House, that I by no means intended to proclaim Ireland for years to come under this Act. [Mr. SEXTON: No, no!] "Well, he quoted some words of mine which were interpreted by him as meaning that for years to come Ireland would not be proclaimed under the Act. Sir, the words I used did not, and could not, bear that interpretation. Would it not have been absolutely inconsistent for me to ask the House to pass the Bill, not in order that peace and order might be restored at the present moment, not that the powers of the Bill, might be put in force at the present moment, but at some indefinitely distant date, and after the lapse of an unknown number of years, then the Government might find it necessary to put the Act into force? I think the hon. Gentleman will see that the interpretation he puts upon my words is contradicted, not merely by the meaning of the words, but by the circumstances under which they were uttered.

MR. SEXTON

The words I quoted were accompanied by other words— We hope that the area of Ireland over which it will ever he necessary to use it will he hut a small part of the country."—(3 Hansard, [316] 1068.)

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Member is confusing two distinct issues. In the words I delivered I have refuted, and I apprehend refuted conclusively, the absurd meaning he places on the first part of the quotation he has read to the House.

MR. T. M. HEALY

But what about the second part?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman has with others of his Colleagues attached the statistics we have placed before the House, and has even gone the length of saying that they are imaginary statisticts put down in defiance of truth by the officials responsible for them—that they and we are accomplices in the attempt to deceive Parliament. I think it is only necessary to state that accusation in order to repudiate it. I do not apprehend it is necessary now, any more than it was before, for me to defend servants of the Crown and officials under them against this charge of deliberate falsification which the hon. Gentleman with a light heart has made. The hon. Member went on to say that I had consulted magistrates as to the administration of the Crimes Act who would be themselves responsible for exercising judicial functions under it. That is inaccurate and wholly baseless. He also stated, in direct contravention of what I stated earlier in the evening, that I did not consult the Lord Lieutenant on the Proclamations, and I repeat what I said earlier.

MR. SEXTON

I said his advice had no effect.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman went much further—he said I did not consult the Lord Lieutenant. His counsel has always proved of value on every point. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that we had gone in direct contradiction of assurances given in the House, and that we debated in Privy Council the action to be taken in regard to this Proclamation. He seems to think that for two hours together this was debated. I repeat what I said before, owing to the necessity of rectifying a clerical error the Privy Council had to sit a longer period than it is ordinarily necessary to do; but during the whole of that period they were not asked to give their advice on the subject of the Proclamation. The hon. Gentleman has attacked the case we have made out; but it appears to me the statistics we have laid before the House are really ample to prove there exists a condition of intimidation which is ample justification for putting in force the first four clauses of the Act. To support that assertion, it is only necessary to call attention to the Returns laid on the Table showing the number of persons suffering Boycotting and the number receiving police protection. The hon. Member has, indeed, endeavoured to prove that it is a privilege to receive police protection, and rather a lucrative speculation to be Boycotted; but I repudiate this contention, and, like other accusations, it falls by its own extravagance. If Boycotting is so delightful, why is it that it is the punishment the League inflicts upon those who offend against its rules? Why is it that the fear of this punishment induces unwilling people to come before the League Courts and make abject apology for doing that which in happier countries every citizen thinks he has a right to do, without consulting anyone else? The Committee could not have failed to note the extraordinary phrase by which the hon. Gentleman indicated the monstrous, the horrible punishment to which the members of the Curtin family have been subjected after the horrible murder of the head of that family; he said they "fell under the displeasure of their neighbours !" This is the hon. Member's moderate statement of a systematic persecution that has made everybody's blood run cold who has followed the case.

MR. SEXTON

What I said was that the greater publicity helped the family, and did not hurt them.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I refer particularly to the astonishing phrase by which he chose to indicate the Boycotting to which, the members of the Curtin family have been subjected. Then the hon. Member went on to discuss the 14 counties in which not the four clauses of the Act are put in force, but only a certain limited portion of one particular clause. Now, there are two points dealt with in this clause—taking forcible possession and attacking officers of the law, and I argued in support of making this a part of the general law applicable to the whole of Ireland, irrespective of Proclamation.

MR. SEXTON

And why not apply it to England?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Therefore, my consistency is beyond reproach. The unnecessary interruption the hon. Gentleman has just made reminds me of another point. He asks what would be thought in England if, at a meeting in Trafalgar Square, there was public excitement and assaults on the police, and these assaults were dealt with by summary jurisdiction without the protection of a jury? Well, Sir, that is actually what would happen in England. That is the law of England at this moment, and all we have done by extending this particular and limited portion of the Crimes Act to Ireland is to make the law in Ireland as nearly as possible uniform with what has for years been the law of England. This presents, I think, a sufficient answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's speech when he asked how it came about that, in the peaceful state of counties, where crime was unknown, we nevertheless used our power and proclaimed them under this particular sub-head. We thought it desirable and expedient to extend to Ireland what long ago ought to have been so extended, and what is the law of England. There may at any time be riotous conduct under excitement that may arise, and we have made the Proclamation under this subhead universal throughout Ireland.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

I am disposed to take exception to the right hon. Gentleman's statement as to the application of summary jurisdiction in England; but I am not a lawyer, and cannot pretend to speak with any authority upon such a point.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not wish to be misunderstood. What I asserted, and all that it was necessary for my argument to assert, was that by summary jurisdiction, and not by jury, the offence of assaults on the police was dealt with. The punishment, too, is six months' imprisonment.

COLONEL NOLAN

Well, as neither of us have the necessary legal qualifications, I think it is a point we had bettor leave the lawyers to discuss; it is altogether another point to which I wish to call attention. I want to complain of the official who supplied the right hon. Gentleman with false information in reference to alleged Boycotting at Tuam, and there is naturally much indignation at the false account of what actually took place. The information supplied to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was to the effect that a large grazier near Tuam had incurred the popular displeasure, and the people had torn down his wall and filled up a well of his. Of course, this would be a very wrong thing to do; but the information was totally incorrect, and so gross a misrepresentation of the real facts, that I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will, after investigation, take some steps to mark his sense of the conduct of whoever supplied him with the false information. I have a telegram here from one of the most respectable mercantile men of the town, and it confirms the statement made in a letter from the local administrator, which I have seen, that it was the grazier himself who pulled down the wall to enable his cattle to get at the well; and what the people did was to complain to the Local Board, who directed that the wall should be built up again, so that the people who had always been accustomed to use the well might have the water kept pure and uncontaminated by cattle. I believe the people then set to work and did actually build up the wall, not waiting for the action of the Sanitary Board, which at Tuam, as elsewhere, is not always rapid. Now, I think, at the very outside, supposing the people were wrong in thus anticipating the action of the Sanitary Board, it is only a case for a civil action; and I do not suppose any punishment would be inflicted. But surely it ought not to be represented to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as a case of Boycotting, giving the town an evil reputation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has the means of knowing that the infor- mation supplied to him was false. He can see—if he has not seen—the letter of the administrator recording all the facts; and if he cannot do so now, I hope he will on a subsequent occasion take an opportunity of saying that the account supplied to him was incorrect, for his official utterances give publicity to a statement discreditable to a peaceful locality. I think the right hon. Gentleman should inquire into the facts, and, finding them altogether opposite to his statement, should give equal publicity to the denial.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will furnish me with particulars, I will make it my duty to inquire.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I do not think I ever heard a more lame and inadequate reply from a Minister to a severe indictment than that to which we listened a few minutes ago. What were the points, to recapitulate them briefly, put forward with unanswerable force by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton)? I cannot now summarize them all. I can only point out the most serious, to many of which the right hon. Gentleman gave the go by, though they were driven home with great force by my hon. Friend, such as, I believe, I have never heard excelled in any speech in this House. First, he pointed out that the Proclamation was resorted to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary with indecent haste, without the possibility of anything worthy of the name, or that could be truthfully described as consultation with the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council; whereas there was a clear and distinct understanding given in the House, during our discussion of the Crimes Act, in repeated pledges by the right hon.. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and other Ministers, that the application of the Act should be limited in area where the necessity for its application should be shown to exist. Of course, we understood these assurances to mean that the application of the Act would be limited to areas wherein it was found on inquiry there was a state of disturbance, crime, or outrage. But my hon. Friend has shown this Proclamation was put forward with hot haste after the passing of the Act. Without consideration the Act was applied, as regards the provisions in the four first clauses of the Act, and also its more stringent provisions, to 18 out of the 32 counties of Ireland, of which number there is not in more than three counties the shadow of an excuse for it, even from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. To this the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary gave no reply at all, though the Proclamation constitutes a distinct and deliberate breach of faith to the House, for it was made an argument, and repeated again and again, to induce us to trust this power to the Executive; over and over again it was said—" Our Bill will be strictly limited in point of area, and we hope that the portions of Ireland to which it will be necessary to apply the Bill will be extremely limited." What do we find? With no outburst of disorder, but in the face of what is admitted repeatedly to be an improving state of the country, though with the admission opportunity is taken to insult the people by saying they are cowards, and are afraid of the Act, the right hon. Gentleman deliberately rushes over to Dublin, and, without due consultation, proclaims more than half the whole of Ireland under the more stringent provisions of the Act, without the shadow of a shade of justification. This has been urged with an aptitude of illustration, not beyond what the subject demands, by my hon. Friend, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary does not attempt to answer it. It is not possible to defend such a gross and flagrant breach of faith as has ever taken place in public life in this country. I do not see how the Ministry is going to get over it. Another of the points urged by my hon. Friend had reference to the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who stated during the passing of the Bill through the House that he was of opinion that the minor provisions ought to be applied to the ordinary Criminal Law of the country. I observe he has now confined himself to the offence of assault on the officers of law, leaving conveniently out of view and trying to pass by that obnoxious portion of the clause that applies this power of summary jurisdiction and six months' hard labour to those poor creatures nominally and technically guilty of the offence of taking forcible possession of their houses. He did not say that this was the law of England. It is a most iniquitous provision; and when he tried to induce the House to assent to the inclusion of that which we moved to omit in Committee, he did not say anything about applying it to the whole of Ireland. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) sought to justify that by drawing desperate pictures of bands of armed men attacking houses, injuring and endangering the lives of the caretakers, and plainly led the House to believe that the provision was intended to apply to Kerry, and for coping with the acts of Captain Moonlight there and in other places. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary knows that in the majority of cases what is called taking forcible possession is a perfectly peaceful proceeding. When he made his defence he, however, never made any allusion to this. He will not attempt to say it is the law of England, or that his Government is prepared to make it such. Such an attempt would be met with general opposition in this country; or, at least, I hope so. So much for that point. It is impossible to conceive upon what principle tins provision, the most repugnant to justice, is applied to the whole of Ireland; and if I wanted illustrations to strengthen our case I might point to Carlow. where there has been no case of taking forcible possession recorded by the police for a whole year past. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary falls back on the Police Returns of Boycotting, and these have been torn into shreds and tatters by my hon. Friend. In point of fact, there is not the slightest reason why these Returns should not show 50,000 cases; they are official, and the House must accept them as the basis of his novel method of argument. On statistics which simply enumerate cases without any clue to their identification, without the least shadow of opportunity of inquiry and arriving at the truth, he calls on the House to decide on an important question of the administration of the law, or to pass Statutes on the faith of anonymous Returns, the irresponsible testimony of unknown officials, for we have no name as authority. No one supposes that Mr. Reed goes round to inquire into the truth of the Returns. We have not the names of the officials respon- sible; it is a totally novel method of procedure. Let us examine these Returns by such lights as are afforded us for examination. We have always been told all along that the system of Boycotting is based on the most frightful intimidation. Will that be denied? Has it not been the common ground of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and have they not drawn the most horrible pictures of the frightful character of the intimidation on which Boycotting is based? That cannot be denied; it will be in the memory of all. Now I will take a few illustrations from this list, and I begin with the Province of Leinster, and I take County Carlow, and hero we have 16 cases of persons Boycotted, wholly or partially. Now I turn to the Reports of outrages furnished by the police for the same period—the June quarter—and I find that in the entry for Carlow both columns dealing with the offences of intimidation are blank; intimidation, by threatening letters or otherwise, there is absolutely none during the whole three months that preceded the passing of the Crimes Act. No act of intimidation committed in Carlow, and yet 16 people are Boycotted there! Explain that if you can. You tell us Boycotting is based on a detestable system of intimidation, and yet your own police officers return no case of intimidation in County Carlow, where 16 people are returned as Boycotted. These figures are repeated again and again. In Kilkenny there are 258 people returned as Boycotted, and this I believe to be a gross invention, for I believe the cases of Boycotting in Kilkenny are extremely few. To say that there are 45 persons completely Boycotted is, I think, utterly absurd. Now, turn to the intimidation Returns, and we find no case of intimidation by threatening letter or otherwise. And yet you have 258 cases of Boycotting. Now, I will leave it to the intelligence of any man, has not the House been humbugged, bamboozled, when it was told that Boycotting was based on the most desperate intimidation, and then asked to believe that, without intimidation, there are 258 cases of Boycotting in Kilkenny during three months? Either the right hon. Gentleman must admit there is no intimidation in Boycotting, or else that his statistics are so many lies. We ask you for the names of these 258 people, and with my know- ledge of Ireland I will undertake, if you give me names or references to Kilkenny, to show that four-fifths of these cases are inventions. Certainly there are not 10 people Boycotted in Kilkenny. I might go on through the whole list, and I have no doubt there are a number of cases equally striking. Take Wexford, where there are more cases of Boycotting probably than in any other county, 10 times as many as in Kilkenny I should say. But your figure is 292, and there are no Returns of intimidation. Now, I ask any fair-minded man, could these figures present a stronger case than they do in our favour? Let me call attention to this fact, for it is important as bearing upon this Proclamation and the justification upon these Returns for proclaiming these counties. We were told when the Act was going through Committee, and the wording of the Proclamation bears me out, that the Proclamation should be for crime and outrage, not for Boycotting. The Proclamation follows the wording of the Statute, which is—the Lord Lieutenant may, by and with the advice of his Privy Council, from time to time, as he deems it necessary for the "prevention or detection of crime and outrage." Mind, crime and outrage, not the new offences created by the Act, but what was known before as crime or outrage. There is not even the compensation of the word "or." It says, crime "and" outrage, not crime "or" outrage, must be proved to exist before a Proclamation can be declared under the provisions of this Act. Now, Sir, I contend that that strictly limits it, and that the Government are bound, before they can issue a Proclamation under this Act, to ascertain that it is necessary for the discovery and punishment of crime and outrage. But there is no crime or outrage. What do these figures prove? Suppose that we admit that there are some Boycotted people in, say, the county of Kilkenny; supposing we say that there are 10 Boycotted people in that county. I think, by-the-bye, that that would be an outside figure, for it is a very quiet county indeed, and there have been very few strikes there with regard to rent. But what do our figures placed side by side with your figures prove? They prove that Boycotting is a system of peaceful associations—that it is a peaceable combination devoid of intimidation among a certain class of people for the protection of their own interests; and I contend that it is established beyond question that the Return you have given showing a number of cases of Boycotting fails to show that any act of intimidation has been committed in the county. You can make them agree one with the other. If it is a comparatively innocent class of Boycotting, then it cannot be described as crime and outrage. It is simply a peaceable combination among the people that they will not deal with certain individuals; and we contend that it is not illegal under the Statute; but that the wording of the Statute, as I have read it out to you, deprives you of the power of issuing a Proclamation in respect of districts in which mere Boycotting exists. It is an important fact which cannot be too often repeated; I believe, and I am convinced, that it conveys the spirit of the Statute, that the Executive in Ireland have violated the law in issuing this Proclamation. It is not enough, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to assert that the matter has been decided by the House. The mere fact of your having passed a Coercion Act does not place the Executive at liberty to do exactly as they like. It does not render them able to administer the law irrespective of criticism. It would not enable the Executive to take up anybody or everybody and have them shot on the spot. You cannot do that even if you have a Coercion Act. You must be restrained; you must be kept by the wording of the Statute that authorizes you to issue a Proclamation, where the Lord Lieutenant, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, holds that it is necessary for the prevention, detection, and punishment of crime and outrage. I have proved that in this county of Kilkenny there is neither crime nor outrage; and I ask, how could you contend that you are justified by the words of the Statute in applying this Proclamation for the discovery and punishment of crime and outrage to that county, when your Police Return proves, beyond all question, that in that county there is neither crime nor outrage? This is a very serious matter. It is our right to criticize the conduct of the Executive, especially when they commit such serious acts as that which I have just described. They are not at liberty to over-ride the Statute as they have done in this case; and yet here we have the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland getting up and deliberately omitting to reply to any one of the grave and important charges that we have made against his action in Ireland. He certainly got up and replied to some of the minor points upon matters of infinitesimal importance; but the main charge made by my hon. Friend met with no reply whatsoever. Let me inform hon. Gentlemen opposite that they are purely mistaken in their opinions of the functions of the House. The chief function of this House is to criticize the action of the Executive; and until you get us under lock and key, which cannot possibly be done until after the end of the Session, we shall continue to exercise this function—until, under your Act, you have resort to the only method of argument which appears to me at all effectual, that method of argument embodied in the words coming from the Front Ministerial Bench—"I claim to move that the Question be now put." That is the chief characteristic of the Conservative Government at the present time; but, fortunately, they are not in a position to pursue that course just now; and we intend to insist on having laid before us the grounds for this wholesale issue of the Proclamation in Ireland. I contend that the grounds which have been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary constitute a gross and flagrant breach of faith, and of his repeated pledges given in this House in the course of the debates on the Crimes Act; and I venture to say that the people of England, when this fact is brought home to them, will make known in no unmistakable fashion their opinion upon it.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I beg to move, Sir, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again; and I do so in order that I may inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) whether the Government intend to take tonight the Technical Schools (Scotland) Bill? Already another Scotch Bill has been put down for Thursday evening, and it will be very inconvenient for the Scotch Members to be kept up till 4 o'clock this morning and late again on Thursday. I would suggest that the Technical Schools Bill be not taken to- night, but that it be deferred till Thursday.

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

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

The Technical Schools Bill will not be taken, and I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will consent to withdraw his Motion.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I hope the hon. Gentleman will do nothing of the sort. It is now 20 minutes to 2. We were here in this House till 2 o'clock this morning; we have to get up here, if we do our duty, at 12 o'clock to-day; and, as has been repeatedly pointed out on former occasions, the attendants of this House require some rest as well as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury; and though the right hon. Gentleman does not require to be in his place till 12 o'clock in the day, yet the attendants have to be there at the early hour of 10 o'clock. I think it is perfectly monstrous that the officials and attendants of this House should be kept up night after night in the way they are kept up by your own side of the House, and that we should be asked to come down here six days a week, and sit up night after night till 4 o'clock in the morning. I hope my hon. Friend will not withdraw his Motion, and if he does I shall have great pleasure in moving a similar one myself.

MR. HUNTER

I made the Motion in order that I might ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, and having done that I wish now to withdraw it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

I am very glad indeed that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn his Motion, in order that we may get some real reply from the Government to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). I think I have never heard a case so completely damaged as has been the case of the Government in the speeches which have been delivered to-night. I really was not aware before to-day—because I had not had an opportunity of going into the statistics—that the case of the Government for this Coercion Act was so wretched a one. How has the charge been met by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland? I never knew an answer more inadequate than the one we have had to listen to to-night. The right hon. Gentleman says you must not impugn our action, because a Minister of the Crown is a person who under no circumstances can do any wrong. But, after all, Ministers of the Crown are only mortal beings, and so by no means infallible, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. The whole Constitution of this country is framed on distrust of the Ministers of the Crown; and now my hon. Friend has brought forward facts so conclusive as to blow the case of the Government out of the water. What is the answer to his contention? We are told that Ministers of the Crown are respectable and responsible men; that they would not be parties to anything un-Constitutional; and that is the only way in which the Government seek to defend themselves. They want to write the motto "All serene" over their doors. But let us assume that everything is all right, and that "All serene" is to be the watchword of future Governments. What are we brought here for if that is the kind of answer we are to get from the Government? I will take one point which was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast, and I think that that one point will be sufficient to demonstrate the hollowness of the case of the Government. My hon. Friend quoted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary on the 27th of June— that he not only hoped not to have to put this Act in force for large districts, but that he also hoped that in certain instances he would not have to put it into force at all. Very well. He hoped that in large districts it would not be necessary that the Act should be enforced at all. If that was so then, what has happened since to justify its being put in force? We are entitled to an answer to that question. I am surprised, because I know some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite agreed to this Bill being carried with great regret. Now, it seems to us that it was passed under false pretences, and I am surprised that they do not insist on some kind of explanation from the Government as to their course of action. I have already referred to the words in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said he hoped it would not be necessary to put the Act in force at all in certain districts. Yet two days after this Act was passed through the House he rushed over to Ireland, and having taken a sniff of Irish air, then, Sir, he put the Act in force. That is a monstrous thing. It is like the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in the matter of appeals. First, he promised us a right of appeal in certain cases, and then he refuses us the privilege, after stating that he had too pedantically followed the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). I press for an explanation of this action. I say we are entitled to be told what has happened between the 23rd of June and the day after the passing of the Bill, the 12th of July, to withdraw the rest of Ireland from the pale of the Constitution. Let me tell the Government this. If the Irish people are not to gain anything by being peaceful they might just as well be turbulent. We have the statement from the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) that it is only by turbulence and disorder that rents have been reduced. If our people are not to enjoy the protection of the Constitution when they are peaceable they might just as well be turbulent; and they may act on the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who says that men may secure a reduction of rent by being turbulent. How are we then to be rewarded for being peaceful, if the country is to be proclaimed when it is in a perfect state of peace? There is a county, forsooth, which has been quoted as the worst county in Ireland; and yet the county of Monaghan, which is undoubtedly a very peaceful county, has been placed on exactly the same footing by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as the county of Kerry, although Monaghan does not at all approach Kerry in either the intensity or the character of its crime, Hon. Gentlemen opposite must have perjured consciences if they are prepared to support the Government in a Bill of this kind. Now, with regard to the Boy- cotting Returns, let the Government take the smallest county in Ireland, the county of Carlow. Let us suppose that there are 100 Boycotted persons in that county—but stop, let us see how many there are. The Return shows that the number of persons protected by the police patrols is two. The number of persons partially Boycotted is 16. Now that is the smallest county in Ireland, and in that there are 16 persons Boycotted. Give us a Select Committee of this House which can sit next week, and inquire into the truth or falsehood of this Report. Do not publish a tittle of the evidence. Have a majority of your Party on that Committee, and if we do not show you that 14 out of the 16 of these cases of Boycotting are lies I shall be very much surprised indeed. There is an offer to the Government. It is a real offer. They are putting forward these figures simply for their own purposes, and if they do not accept my offer we shall know what to think of it. Remember this is the smallest county in Ireland, and I can assure the House that Irish Members would be very glad to spend some of their time during the waning of this Session in finding out the truth or falsity of the statistics. Will you give us a Select Committee to inquire into the cases of these 16 persons who are reported to be Boycotted? Let us know what has been the nature of the Boycotting. Are they cases of persons Boycotted by the landlords — are they included in the Return? Suppose a landlord refuses to employ a labourer because he happens to be a member of the National League, is a case of Boycotting of that kind included in the Return, or is it only the cases of the Boycotting of the land-grabbers that are included? Are the village shopkeepers with whom the landlords never deal included in the Returns? I venture to say that if they were, instead of 16 there would be more than 1,600 persons returned as Boycotted in the county of Carlow. I know a little about the Carlow Union, where the landlords have a majority, and I venture to say that in no Union is there more Boycotting done by the landlords as against the Catholics. Now, as to these 16 persons you have reported to be Boycotted. Give us their names; let us judge for ourselves as to whether the cases are well founded or not. We will be content to deal with this the smallest county in order to judge your Returns; and I warn the Government that they cannot be allowed to blacken the character of the Irish people in the dark; and we insist on having some proof of their statistics, and I take the county of Carlow, which is the smallest county in Ireland, and therefore will cost the Government the least trouble, in order that we may judge as to the truth or falsehood of the Returns they have laid before the House.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I must say that I did not expect to be charged with having sought to avoid the points made by hon. Members opposite.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The best for them.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. T. M. Healy), and the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), as far as I recollect, brought forward three questions which they reiterated time after time, and which also were contained in the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). The first point had reference to statistics, and the second was as to the area proclaimed; and the third was as to the question of intimidation. Now, as regards the statistics. I have replied to that more than once to-day, and I also replied to it yesterday. Those statistics are given on the authority of officials in Ireland in the same way that other statistics are given both in England and Scotland, and such authority is always supposed to be an adequate authority, and it is an authority which, the House habitually accepts, and upon which it bases its decisions. It was for not giving statistics on that authority that I was reproached the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). I therefore cannot admit as open to argument the honesty and genuineness of those statistics.

MR. T. M. HEALY

Which are we to rely upon? One set of your statistics say one thing, and one set say another.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not quite gather what the hon. and learned Member alludes to.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I am referring to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Well, although I had not intended to do so, I will deal at once with the argument referring to this point, and I contend that I am right in my statement as to these statistics, and that I have been unceasingly misinterpreted. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) used this kind of argument. He said you have always alleged that Boycotting exists by reason of intimidation, and that intimidation is the chief characteristic of Boycotting, so that where there is no intimidation there can be no Boycotting at all; and he has taken the case of certain counties in Ireland in which our statistics alleged Boycotting to exist, although neither Return states that there are any cases of intimidation existing there; and he has asked me how I account for this inconsistency. But, Sir, I contend that it is not an inconsistency. The inconsistency is in the character of the argument used—and a manifest inconsistency; and I meet this argument by saying that I have never asserted that Boycotting cannot exist without the sanction of intimidation. I believe that there are cases of Boycotting in which there is no actual intimidation. And another point is that intimidation in connection with cases of Boycotting are not of necessity returned under the head of cases of intimidation in the ordinary Returns. I think the hon. Member will, therefore, admit that there is no inconsistency in my argument. It only remains, then, for me to deal with the third point which he has brought forward. He says that I gave a pledge that the Bill should only be extended to certain parts of Ireland. Now, I never gave any pledge of that kind. The very character of the Bill shows, in my opinion, that the Executive Government were bound to take power to enable them to extend this Bill to all parts of Ireland the condition of which might seem to require it. I did express a sanguine hope that a large part of Ireland would not require it; and I repeat that I do not believe that a large part of Ireland will suffer by reason of this Bill. There is a part of the subhead of the 2nd sub-section which is extended to the whole of Ireland; but, after all, the provision contained in that sub-head is merely the ordinary law of England, and I always hoped that the same law should prevail in Ireland. The opposition of the Liberal Party to the passing of the Crimes Bill did not, for one moment, relate to this particular provision. I must ask hon. Members to bear that fact in mind. I think I have now dealt with all the important points which are raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

I am afraid we are not yet satisfied with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I think there are very many points touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has carefully avoided dealing, even in his second speech; and I propose reminding him of one or two of those points. But, first, may I point out the position in which he has placed himself by the explanation he has given to the Committee? He says he has never admitted that the case of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is made out by the facts. There are 700 persons reported as Boycotted, and 800 persons reported as under police protection, and my hon. Friend points out that those figures represent a state of gross and violent intimidation; yet, in the face of those figures, we have the additional fact that there are only 15 cases of intimidation reported in regard to Ireland during the month of June. How are you satisfactorily to explain this difference? You cannot do it. The Chief Secretary says he has never asserted that intimidation is necessarily an accompaniment of Boycotting. But, Sir, if crime or intimidation does not accompany Boycotting, then I maintain that there can be no crime in Boycotting, and there can be no pretence whatever for the Bill, or for calling Boycotting a crime. If it is not carried on by means of intimidation or outrage, by what pretence have you the audacity to take away the liberties of Ireland on the ground that there are a certain number of cases of Boycotting, which in itself is an innocent practice, inconsistent with and unaccompanied by crime and intimidation? It is a pretty dilemma in which the right hon. Gentleman has landed himself; and, he would have done well to reflect very carefully before he gave an extraordinary explanation of that kind. I venture to say never be- fore has this House hoard such a statement as that Boycotting was a crime, although it was not sustained by the force of intimidation, outrage, or murder. Now, I have a few questions to ask which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) will be able to answer in the absence of the Minister for Ireland. The county of Antrim shows no case of any person being partially or wholly Boycotted—no case of police protection; Tyrone shows only four cases of minor offences in the June quarter, and Dublin County has no case of Boycotting and only three persons under police protection. Why were these three counties, showing an absolute blank in their Criminal Calendar, proclaimed under any part of the Crimes Act? As the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has returned I will put the question to him, why are the counties of Antrim, Tyrone, and Dublin, the record of which, in the Criminal Calendar, is absolutely blank as regards Boycotting; why were these proclaimed under any section of the Crimes Act? It is a question to which it is not easy to give an intelligent or satisfactory answer. I would also call the attention of the Committee to the records of the counties Donegal, King's, Queen's, Longford, and Mayo, and others, which show no single case of persons being wholly Boycotted; and yet, though Boycotting is made the chief ground on which the Proclamation is defended, these counties also are included in the Proclamation. In other counties there are no cases of Boycotting, few cases of serious crime of any kind, no case of forcible possession, no case of assault on the officers of the law; and yet nine such counties are proclaimed under the section that defines the offences of forcible possession or assaults on officers of the law as those to which it is applicable. I repeat, the right hon. Gentleman has not met these questions; he has given no answer whatever, and it will not do for him, either in this House or in the country, by getting up at that Table and trying to dismiss the case with his mere ipse dixit. These statistics I believe to be a mass of fraud; and if we had the opportunity of tracing individual cases, if we had the means of sifting them, we should find no difficulty in establishing their fictitious character, and even the Ministry opposite would be ashamed of the case which is based on such statistics. Attention has been called to a supposed case of Boycotting in County Kerry, and I believe that is a sample of the majority of cases if we could sift them. This was a case at Ballyduff, where a process-server had police protection for two years. The police lived in his house, bought his goods, and wherever he went the police followed in a car hired from himself, while he rode before them in a common cart. He could have ridden in the same car; but in order to get the 12s. a-day for car-hire, he insisted on the police riding alone in the car, knowing it was the only vehicle they could get in the district. He represented that he had been fired at two or three times; but the people of the locality believed he was lying, in order to keep the police protection, and I have little doubt the people were right. This is a sample of the cases, and gives an indication of what would be the result if we had the means of investigating them all. I referred last night to that terrible case of the midwife, with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary tried to harrow the feelings of the House in his speech on introducing the Coercion Bill. I remember how he tried to show the terrible extent of Boycotting by this instance of a midwife refusing to attend a poor woman in her confinement. But he has since not had the courage to face that midwife in Dublin. He knows she has applied to the Court for a writ, and that he is out of the jurisdiction of the Court; but he has not the manliness to say he will accept service of the writ in England, and put to the test the truth of the libel he has uttered. Another case was made a great deal of at one time, in one of the most powerful and pathetic passages of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that of a little child deprived of its milk—a most pathetic case, if it had occurred; but it did not occur, except in the foul imaginations of the witnesses who gave evidence before the Cowper Commission, landlord witnesses treated in an exceptional manner by the Landlord Commission, and never cross-examined—treated as if they were persons absolutely to be believed without an inquiry into their antecedents. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer found this case in the Blue Book, and he fastened upon it, stuck to it with almost ghoulish delight, and it turns out to be but a figment of the imagination. If we had the opportunity of investigating them, I am sure we could dispose in like manner of the cases upon which the Government claim to exercise arbitrary power. In consequence of the manner in which our case has been evaded we cannot allow this discussion to close tonight. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has failed to rise because he recognizes that he has no case. Earlier in the discussion he came with pencil and paper, and seemed to be preparing to speak; but after the speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast I remarked that he put his pencil and his paper in his pocket. It may be that Ministers do not rise because the facts put forward by my hon. Friend are new to them, and that they want time to make up their facts in reply. With the view of giving them an opportunity, I now move, Sir, that you report Progress.

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

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I must, though I do not know whether it is any use to do so, appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion.

MR. CLANCY

Not a bit of use.

MR. W. H. SMITH

The Government cannot accept the Motion now. We have given to the best of our ability answers to all inquiries and statements, and it will be useless to adjourn the discussion till to-morrow merely to repeat these statements and answers. I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen, are they forwarding the interests they have at heart by the mere prolongation of discussion and repetition of statements? There is no new matter to add. I have heard myself full answers given, and I do not see that we can go further. I trust we may now come to a decision on the Vote.

MR. SEXTON

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could have heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, or he would not commit himself to the statement that a full reply was made or attempted. I laid before the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary the case of the 18 counties proclaimed under the first four clauses of the Act. I pointed out that crime was almost non-existent, although the Act requires—and my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo emphasized this by argument—that the justification of such a Proclamation should be the prevalence of crime and outrage. But no attempt has been made to show that such exists in any of those counties. Then we quoted the official Returns; but right hon. Gentlemen are busy talking; they do not pay attention; and that is another reason for reporting Progress now and resuming to-morrow, when, perhaps, they will be in a more businesslike humour. There is no proof, we say, of crime and outrage existing, and my hon. Friend has driven home the fact from two Government Returns resting on the same authority—the Inspector General of Constabulary. The one says there are some 7.00 or 800 persons wholly or partly Boycotted, and that there are 1,000 persons under police protection. If this is a true representation of the condition of affairs, then you have some 1,700 persons cut off from all association with their fellows, or protected by armed men, and if your argument holds good this is maintained by constant acts of intimidation. But then we have another Return, giving the statement of the Inspector General that there were only 15 acts of intimidation reported in the quarter ending with the month of June. Has any attempt been made to reconcile these statements? Is it a reply to say you rely on statistics, when we set the fact of there being only 15 cases of intimidation by the side of the statement that there are 1,700 cases of persons Boycotted or under police protection. It is manifestly and grossly a lie. We must ask the right hon. Gentleman, before he is entitled to represent that a full and ample reply has been given, to reconcile, if he can, this monstrous contradiction. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) to tell me can he make a good case out of such evidence? Can he show that in these counties a man cannot have a fair trial, and is there any justification for withdrawing the usual tribunals for the administration of justice? We have appealed to the Summer Assizes, and we have shown that there is no justification for your action in 16 counties. We have compared 1881 with 1887 in respect to convictions for crime; and I have laid down the broad principle, based upon the figures of the last six years, that the law was better administered—that convictions were more often obtained—when you had no Coercion Bill than when you had. What reply do you make? I am prepared to go more closely into it. [Cries of" Question ! "] I beg the hon. and learned Attorney General to maintain the courtesies of the House, as behoves one whom we have heard called the "Bayard of Debate." I beg him to be a little more patient with me while I show that I have proved my case that there has not been an ample reply, and that the claim of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to close the discussion on that account is illusory. We have not had a reply; the Government are not disposed to enter upon that reply; and therefore I trust the debate may be resumed to-morrow, and not closed to-night.

MR. DILLON

I am strongly of opinion that it is absolutely essential to adjourn the discussion, both on the ground put forward by my hon. Friend, and on another—and equally strong— ground that there are a number of items dealing with the administration of the Executive in Ireland of the utmost importance, and some involving great abuses that require to be discussed. There is the item of £1,500 a-year for the drafting of Irish Bills we wish to strike off, and there are various other points; and we have had no answer in reference to the item of £420 for the Chief Secretary's costs. There is the item for the Veterinary Department, on which points of enormous interest arise; there is the Inspector of Fisheries, and, indeed, so many items that it is absurd to think we can close discussion on the Vote to-night.

MR. W. H. SMITH

Well, Sir, I will not contest the point further; but the responsibility of this delay must rest with hon. Members who cause it. I feel confident that the country will rightly judge these proceedings. I will not, if hon. Gentlemen insist on reporting Progress, enter into a contest which is always discreditable to the House.

MR. T. M. HEALY

I think it is only fair to say, on behalf of my hon. Friend, that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he thinks there is any intention of protracting debate. I fuel satisfied that the mere fact of throwing over this Vote for another night will not lead to a single further day being consumed beyond the time allotted in our minds towards these discussions. My hon. Friend has made clear his demand for an answer, and, having that, not anticipating that it will be a satisfactory one, we shall be prepared to bring this discussion to a close. The Votes for the Local Government Board and for the Board of Works are matters that now shrink into comparatively less importance as compared with these matters having reference to the administration of the Crimes Act. These stand forward as the main question, and we shall not—if met in a reasonable spirit —consume an equivalent amount of time with the other Votes, which, however important in former years, do not now occupy such an important place relatively. The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, acted wisely in making this concession, and I think he will find, in the long run, that he has lost no time by it. In conclusion, I would advise the Government, if they think time so important, to give proof of their bonâ fide desire to wind up the Session, and drop contentious Bills.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.