COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 09 March 1888 vol 323 cc738-63

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

said, he wished to make an appeal to hon. Members below the Gangway opposite not to oppose this Resolution. He was aware that those hon. Member strongly objected to the Bill; but he would undertake that full opportunity for discussion should be afforded on the second reading. It would be quite unusual to oppose the measure at this stage.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to he provided by Parliament, of a Salary to the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said, he objected to this Bill ab initio, because it created a now office. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to tell them that they would have an opportunity of discussing the details of the Bill, but he claimed before the Bill was introduced, or oven this stage taken that some explanation should be given lay the Government of the principle that justified them in introducing it at all. It was monstrous, in view of the denunciations which had been launched against the system of Government practiced in Dublin Castle, by both Parties in that House, that any measure should be introduced for the purpose of creating a now Office, no matter what might be the salary in connection with the Castle. The Bill was the more extraordinary because they had been favoured beforehand with experience of what they might expect; they knew already the value of the Gentleman to whom they were now asked to give this salary. He also understood from reports that had been spread that the right hon. Gentleman was to receive payment for his past work. Speaking from their experience the action of the Government had been neither more nor loss than a device of extreme ingenuity to make the condition of things at Dublin Castle worse than it was before; because, whereas at least they had in the past one official on whom they could come in that House and upon whom they could cast the responsibility of the Dublin Castle system, they had now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) opposed as a buffer between the responsibility of the Irish Government and the Irish Members in the House, It was recognized by the whole country that the duty and business of the right hon. Gentleman was to refuse all information to Irish Members and to answer their Questions as an irresponsible official. They know that the right hon. Gentleman had no more power over the Government Department than any one of themselves, and it was, therefore, monstrous that the only official who now answered Questions on Irish affairs should be an official without any responsibility whatever. They had been subjected to this method for nearly a year, and its object was thoroughly understood by them. They had noticed that although the Irish Secretary entered the House, all the hard work was done by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, who protected the Government from being called to account for the proceedings of the Irish Administration. He con- sidered it an extremely unwise proceeding on the part of the Government to attach to the Irish Department this well-known favourite at the Castle in. Dublin. The system at Dublin Castle had not only been denounced by the Party in that House denominated Home Rulers, but denunciation equally strong had come from the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale, and other Members of the Unionist Party. It was not many years ago that he had read in a speech of the noble Marquess that the system pursued in Dublin Castle could not continue long, and yet the Government were about to add another vested interest to the mass of corruption with which the House would be called upon very shortly to deal, and they were to have another right hon. Gentleman connected with the system at a salary of £1,500 or £2,000 a-year who would eventually have to be bought out. He believed that in view of this consensus of opinion the whole system of Government in Ireland would have to be altered before long, either in the direction in which the Unionist Party or the Home Rule Party wanted to go. Everyone admitted that the change must be sweeping and radical, and that it must come soon. Not a single reason had been vouchsafed by the Government to the House for this deliberate creation of a now officer whose vested interest he had already said would have to be bought out hereafter at an enormous cost to the taxpayers of the country. He said that Irish Members before allowing this Bill to go any further were entitled to a statement on the part of the Irish Government as to why this new Office was necessary. Before sitting down he should once more protest in the name of the Irish Members against that method of putting up the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet to answer Questions on Irish matters. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated some time ago on a certain occasion, when he visited his constituents in the Isle of Thanet, that since he became Under Secretary for Ireland he had laboured 14 hours a-day, and had not received a shilling for his labour. He (Mr. Dillon) regretted that he had laboured 14 hours a-day at his work, because he was truly at a loss to know at what he had been labouring. But if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman wanted some relief from his labour all he could say was that Irish Members would gladly spare him from the House of Commons at Question Time. The power of questioning Ministers was one of the most important rights that could be possessed by Members of Parliament, but the power of questioning Ministers had become for Irish Members nothing more than a farce, because they were not allowed to question anyone who was responsible for the Government of Ireland, but a lay figure, a most imposing one he admitted, had been put before the Chief Secretary to answer their Questions, and they might just as well set up an automaton for the purpose so far as the Government of Ireland was concerned. It was a perfect mockery to put up a man of this kind to answer Questions with regard to one of the most important Departments of Government, and for that reason he contended that Irish Members had every reason and wore entitled to struggle with all their power against the first stage of this proposal.

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

said, he was very reluctant not to be able to comply with the request of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the Opposition should allow the present stage to be taken without discussion. The circumstances under which the Motion was made were not quite of an ordinary kind. On the 14th of April last the Chief Secretary for Ireland said, in answer to a Question of his, that no salary was to be attached to this Office. Not satisfied to leave the matter there, he put a Question to the First Lord of the Treasury, and the First Lord of the Treasury made a very distinct announcement indeed— No document will be laid before Parliament describing the nature and duties of the Office, or the conditions under which it is held; but it is right to state distinctly that no salary or profit is attached to this Oflice."—(3 Hansard [313] 1003). When it turned out that, after all, a salary was to be attached to it, surely they had a right, at the present stage, to ask an explanation from the Government. The Chief Secretary for Ireland the other night alleged some sort of necessity for such an Office on the ground that he had difficult Bills to conduct through Parliament, and that he needed this assistance to answer Questions. But his Predecessors in the same Office—the late Mr. Forster and the Member for the Bridgeton Division—were quite as much bombarded with Questions as the right hon. Gentleman was, and the measures they had in charge were not less onerous in their character. When he was Chief Secretary, although he did not hold the Office long, there was no Irish officer in the House but himself. He should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman what was the case to be made out for the creation of this Office.

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

said, of course, the Government had ample power to create this Office without salary; but also, of course, when it became an office of emolument, it was necessary to get an Act. When last year he stated that no salary was attached to the Office, no salary was actually payable; but they never pretended that they were going to ask any Gentleman to permanently undertake the onerous and responsible duties of this Office without pay. They were of opinion that oven an Irish Under Secretary was worthy of his hire. He was not there to deny that Mr. Forster's duties were severe; but even Mr. Forster never had so much responsible work to do as he had in the last Session of Parliament. Mr. Forster was not responsible for the Land Act; he had the conduct of the Coercion Act of 1881. Then as to the right hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), he was not in the Cabinet; the chief burden fell on Lord Spencer, and the carrying of the Act of 1882 fell mainly on the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt). As to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, he had not during his term of Office had arrayed against him the phalanx of Nationalist Members, who, whatever might be said against them, were not deficient in Parliamentary tact. They were pastmasters in the art of giving Ministers of the Crown plenty of work to do. He anticipated from his right hon. and gallant Friend the Under Secretary great assistance; in fact, he had already given great assistance, particularly in connection with the Local Government Board. But, in his opinion, it would conduce to the proper administration of business in Ireland that there should be a Gentleman with a distinct official position on the Local Government Board of that country. The Chief Secretary would still be President of that Board, which, unfortunately, he was not able to attend. But next to him in authority would be the Under Secretary, whose duty it would be to go into the vast mass of important details, and who would be responsible, at the same time, to Parliament and to the Chief Secretary. This change alone ought to secure the general acceptance of the Bill.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

said, he must strongly protest against the creation of this new Office. The House of Commons always looked with jealousy on a proceeding of this kind.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

explained that he ought to have stated that the Local Government in Ireland permanently consisted of three Members. It was proposed to abolish one of these offices when a vacancy occurred, which would make a saving of £1,200 a-year.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he thought it singular that at a time when the Chief Secretary truly said he was heavily burdened with work in fighting the Coercion Bill through the House of Commons an unpaid Under Secretary was appointed. Now, when it was the great claim of the Government on the country that there was to be a Session without Irish legislation, a paid Under Secretary was to be appointed. This was not a position which would commend itself to one's common sense. The Government had done what was called inserting the thin end of the wedge last Session. That was a curious phrase, for he never heard of inserting the thick end of the wedge. It was very like the system which he thought had disappeared from the administrative system of this country. In former times unpaid attachés used to be appointed on the ground that they were not good for much, and so did not get any pay. After a time it was said that those gentlemen had done good work and ought to be paid. The Government had pledged themselves to the eyes that they would not appoint a paid Under Secretary, and certainly if one was not wanted last year he was not wanted now. The right hon. Member for Newcastle said that quite as much work had to be done in his time. He did not want to make invidious comparisons; but from 1880 to 1885 the work was at least as heavy as it was now. In Mr. Forster's time, when an Arms Bill had to be carried, no new Office was created; but a Cabinet Minister, who happened to be himself, took charge of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the activity of the National League Members; but the Government of 1880 had to face all that and more. They had to face the opposition of hon. Members now sitting below the Gangway and that of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), who gave the Bill what he called "a parting kick." Thus the right hon. Gentleman had no case whatever for going contrary to the pledge of last Session. But the right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to make this Gentleman the second in command over the Local Government Board in Ireland. They had hoard a great deal about local self-government for Ireland. The people who were not Home Rulers were all for local self-government—similar, and to use the phrase of the noble Lord opposite, "similar and simultaneous," institutions in Ireland. The Unionists were all for local self-government. The plan of the Government for carrying out this policy was the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet, who was an Irishman by birth; but had been unable to find an Irish constituency to return him. A more complete mockery of the promise of local self-government could not be imagined, and he, for one, protested strongly against the Bill now before the House.

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

said, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had got up immediately the Chairman left the Chair, and on the ground that the course was unusual, asked Irish Members not to oppose this stage of the Bill. They had already given the Government one stage of the Bill when pressed to do so; but what happened when a Bill similar to this was introduced in the case of the Secretary for Scotland? That Bill was opposed by Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, now of Teheran and elsewhere, in conjunction with the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) and other Con- servatives. The House attended at a morning sitting to-day for the purpose of considering the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the conversion of Consols, and that business having been practically unopposed, the Government had taken advantage of there being no other Business on the Paper to suggest that the present Bill should be allowed to pass without protest. He wondered the right hon. Gentleman had not moved the Closure of the debate, but there being no other measure on the Paper, bad that been done, hon. Members would have gone to the Heading or Dining Room, and there would have been an interval until 9 o'clock. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland got up he had expected that he would have begun his statement with an explanation with regard to the question of non-resignation. It was understood last year that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet received a salary he would have to resign his seat, but it did not suit the Government that he should resign, and so it was stated that he was to receive no salary. The Act of Anne provided that no now Office or place of profit under the Crown should be created without the resignation followed of the Member appointed to it. And it was the argument last year of the late Attorney General the Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), that even the acceptance of Office by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet without salary vacated the seat. Although there might be a question or controversy on that point he (Mr. T. M. Healy) submitted that the practice and precedent of Parliament had always been that, even in the case of an unsalaried Office, there should be resignation. That was the case with the Member for Leeds (Mr. H. Gladstone) who vacated his seat on acceptance of the Office of a Lord of the Treasury. But the Office of the Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, which was an absolutely new Office created last year, they were told, did not vacate the seat of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet, who was to receive a salary of £1,000 a-year. Since the Union there had been no such thing as a Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) had read from Hansard the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet would get no salary; and not only was that the impression on the minds of Irish Members and Members on that side of the House, but it was the impression on the mind of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet himself, who had announced to an assembly of Licensed Victuallers at Margate, that the Irish Members were living on the savings of the Irish servant girls, and that he, an Irish gentleman, was doing the whole work of Under Secretary for nothing. He had shown that it was the construction placed on the arrangement by the First Lord of the Treasury and the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet himself, that there was to be no salary attached to the Office, and they were therefore now met by a complete change of front on the part of the Government. From the Union to the present time no one had dreamt that an Under Secretary was required, or that the Chief Secretary could not do the work of his Office without a coadjutor; but it seemed now that the Chief Secretary required assistance; and who was the coadjutor that had been chosen? He could have understood the selection of a man who was in some sympathy with the aspirations of the Irish people, or of one who would be on friendly terms with Irish Members, because although it had not been the case for some years in that House, previous Governments had been able to find judicial officers connected with the administration in Ireland who had been on such terms with them and the vast body of the Irish people. This had been the case with Mr. Law and Mr. Johnston, and even under a Conservative Government Irish Members had not been on unfriendly terms with Mr. Gibson or with the present Solicitor General for Ireland. When there was so large a choice, it was unfortunate that a gentleman so obnoxious and so repugnant to the Irish people should have been appointed. But above all things, the Irish people hated a turncoat, and the best evidence of the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a turncoat was to be found in a letter which he wrote in the year 1870 to The Nation newspaper, in which he said— Mr. O'Neill Daunt, in his letter in your last issue, has well described my position. He repeats what I stated in a speech made during my canvass, which speech was, of course, unknown to him, and an argument that I used in proof of my sincerity—namely, that by throwing myself into the ranks of repeal, (not of local government or Home Rule)—by throwing myself into the ranks of repeal I had cut myself adrift from all English parties—Whig or Tory, Conservative or Radical, as no English Government could think of offering place or pension, were I disposed to accept it, of any kind, or to a man who had publicly proclaimed himself in favour of Irish Home Rule as opposed to English misgovernment. He thought the Government might have found, if they had been willing to go to the North of Ireland, some Gentleman who would not have been personally offensive and obnoxious to Gentlemen below the Gangway on that side. He did not think even the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) had ever called the Representatives of Ireland "the scum of the swill-tub of Ireland," which was one of the flowers of rhetoric of which the Under Secretary was the sole inventor. He said, therefore, that the Government had made this appointment as offensive and obnoxious to the people of Ireland as it was possible to make it. The Government had on former occasions refused to appoint Members for the North of Ireland to some offices, because, as they said, they would at once be met with the argument that those Members were Orangemen. But he asked if that objection did not lie against the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet? Not only was the right hon. and gallant Gentleman an Orangeman, but he had boasted in a public speech that he had gone down to the County of Roscommon and founded a lodge there, and that he had introduced Orange principles into the county. Then, again, the Government might say they could not appoint a Member for Ulster because it would be said at once that he was a landlord and a rack-renter. But was there anyone who had so black a reputation on this ground as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? They were told by the First Lord of the Treasury that they were to have an opportunity of discussing the life and adventures of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at a later stage. He was glad of that. In the meantime he pointed out that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman having been taunted with joining the Nationalist Party, and had his platforms stormed by the Whigs in Dublin, went down to Longford and put forward his claim on the popular party there; then he wont to Roscommon, where he issued an address which was not sufficient; and Patrick Egan, the Treasurer of the Land League, went to him and wrote for him a second address, which was posted on every wall of Roscommon, and it was never denied that Egan paid the expense for printing and posting the bills. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman then went to Sligo, where he was proposed by the Very Rev. Canon McDermot, and so strong were the pledges he gave to the Nationalists, that he was returned for Sligo unopposed. After this, the first thing he did was to go into retirement for a couple of months, and although he had pledged himself to his Sligo constituents to remain independent of English parties, yet when he came into the House of Commons, to which he was introduced by two Tory Members, one of whom was Lord Claud Hamilton, he took his seat at once upon the Tory Benches. There he had seconded Mr. Butt's Home Rule Motion in 1877, but immediately ratted from his Party, although he had been Secretary to the Home Rule Conference of 1873. The Government had, therefore, selected a man for Under Secretary to whom might be applied, with a slight variation, the words of Moore with regard to Sheridan—namely, that "he had run through each mood of the lyre, and was master of all;"—"Lyre," of course, spelt with a "y." This was the gentleman who had been adopted as the spokesman in that House of the Irish Government. He had touched on the political record of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to some extent, but not as fully as they should do later on when they had the opportunity for examination and inquiry which the First Lord was so anxious to afford; but, he asked, was there ever the record of any gentleman being appointed Privy Councillor with such antecedents as those of the present Under Secretary for Ireland? He did not see why they, who had been denounced by him as "the scum of the swill-tub of Ireland" and the receivers of the dollars of Irish servant girls, and the dupers of the Irish people, should go at the right hon. and gallant Gentleman with gloves off. The right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. John Morley's) plea for an "amnesty" for past utterances of Irish Nationalists had been ridiculed by the Tories, and why should they expect more delicate handling when they gave no quarter themselves? Irish Members had been in prison under the Coercion Act; he forgot what he had been put in for, but he know it was for something not very clearly defined; and several of his hon. Friends, among them the Member for Clare (Mr. Cox) and the ex-Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) had been imprisoned for offences in connection with speeches or under the Press Clauses of the Act; but was there any Irish Members clown to the gentleman who bad boon sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, who could be charged with a single thing of which he need be ashamed? The Government had searched every incident of their lives, but what had they been able to cite against them? What, however, was the case with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, who last year declared in the House that if he had mot Mr. Weldon he would have had the first shot at him, and who had been sentenced by a London Magistrate for acts in connection with a place which was happily no more—namely, the Cremorne Gardens? It was the purist Conservative Party who appointed this Gentleman, and yet their supporters and the right hon. Member for Central Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) declared that any connection which Irish Members might have with the Irish Government would be an insult and outrage to the Queen. This Gentleman was first made by Her Majesty Lord Lieutenant of a county in Ireland; he was then made a magistrate then a Privy Councillor, and, finally, he had been placed over the destinies of Ireland as Under Secretary for Ireland and President of the Local Government Board. Under the circumstances he asked the House whether it was not natural that Irish Members should protest against the appointment of a gentleman of this character to deal with Irish affairs. They found that in every relation of life the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had proved false to the poli- tical principles which he had avowed, and as a landlord he had been branded by Court after Court as a rack-renter and extortionist. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was Lord Lieutenant of the County of Roscommon; he had the appointment of magistrates in that county, and one of the magistrates there was his own agent. The Irish Members had been told that Questions in that House did not need the supervision of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, but that they might be safely relegated to his coadjutor. It was a remarkable fact that the first Question put to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not answered by him. He (Mr. T. M. Healy) had put that Question, and it was replied to by the Chief Secretary, and the reason was that it concerned one of the tenants of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, a poor man named Thomas Kevill. This man asserted that he had a right to cut turf in the bog adjoining his holding, and the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet, with his packed bench, fined him for exercising the right of cutting turf. The solicitor to the defence raised the question of title, and it was the A B C of Law that when the question of title was raised the matter was beyond the jurisdiction of the magistrates. The bench would not raise the fine so as to give the right of appeal; they fined the man an amount under which no appeal would lie, and he accordingly went to the Court of Queen's Bench, on certiorari, where the prosecution was dismissed and the fine reversed. The landlord, the present Under Secretary, was told by the Court that he should bring an action of trespass against the tenant. That action had never been brought, but Thomas Kevill incurred £18 costs in order to reverse that fine of 2s. 6d. or 5s. The £18 was put on the miserable resources of this unfortunate occupier, who would have been practically beggared unless a fund had been made up for him. On Monday next he intended to put a Question to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and he was anxious to see whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would answer it or leave it to be dealt with, by the Chief Secretary. The Question concerned the case of a widow on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's estate in County Longford. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was to be the Under Secretary for Ireland, he was to have the manipulation of Local Government, and he had at the present moment the manipulation of all the Sub-Commissions in the country, and had practically the fixture of all rents in the country—[Cries of "Oh, oh !"]—well, he had through his nominees. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was to be the sympathetic bosom into whom they were to pour their souls on the question of arrears of rack rents. Referring to the case of widow Flood, of Forthill, County Longford, The Westmeath Examiner of the 21st of January said— A tenant, whose rent was reduced last October from £15 8s. to £7 was sued for the rack-rent, which drew from the Judge the observation, ' Is it possible, Mr. Bole, that you are going on for the old rent after the Land Commissioners reducing it over 60 per cent. Surely, you do not expect to recover these arrears from poor people.' Mr. Bole's reply was that he had no authority from his employer to wipe out any arrears. The Judge was the son of Lord Fitzgerald, a, Unionist Peer, and Mr. Bole was Colonel King-Harman's agent in County Longford. Mr. Bole had no authority from his employer to wipe out any arrears. The Government wanted to give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman £1,000 a-year by way, he (Mr. T. M. Healy) supposed, of compensation for having had his rents cut down to the extent of 50 and 60 percent. Under these circumstances he asked English Members—

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

rose to Order. He wished to ask whether it was in Order to discuss the private affairs of a Gentleman who was to be appointed to an Office, when the question before the Committee was the propriety of having the Office at all.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is no doubt making a very large survey of the case, but I cannot say that he is out of Order. He is discussing the qualifications for the Office of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who is already discharging the duties of the Office.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, be was sorry that his remarks were so painful to the right hon. Gentleman, and he should have been glad if he could have thrown a veil over the matter. He was quite willing to take advantage of the sug- gestion that perhaps this matter might be entered into more at large upon a later stage. But when the right hon. Gentleman was so extremely solicitious on questions of Order, might he remind him that upon the Amendment to the Address of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), which dealt with the question of arrears, the right hon. Gentleman's speech was taken up, not with reference to the arrears question, but in dealing with the proceedings of the Blunt trial and with the murders committed in 1881. The right hon. Gentleman managed to make the murders of 1881—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. and learned Gentleman must address himself to the question at issue.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, he recognized to the full the protection the Chairman had afforded him in making his statement, and he thought the best way in which he could mark his sense of the way in which the Chairman's ruling had been given would be, in a very few words, more to strictly confine himself to what he might call the principles governing the creation of this Office, leaving the personal appointment and personal reflections to what they were told by the First Lord of the Treasury would be a more suitable stage. Therefore, he thought he had best ask the Unionist Members above the Gangway, and the Conservative Members opposite, to put to themselves this question—Under all the circumstances of the ease, is the opposition to this measure a reasonable or legitimate opposition, or one that should be met by brute force in the application of the Closure Rule? He asked if he and his hon. Friends had not made out a reasonable case of objection, not so much to the particular Office as to the incumbent of the Office? Large Constitutional questions arose on the creation of the Office. A large Constitutional question might arise as to whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was right or wrong in not resigning his seat last year when he accepted the position. But all these matters were only of historical interest; they were not of that burning interest as to the particular incumbent of the Office. The question he put to English Members was this—when they had a Gentleman of this kind, whose history, for the moment, they would leave where it stood—when a Gentleman of this character was appointed to answer interrogatories in the House, and to deal with things appertaining to local government in Ireland, what chance had Irish Nationalist Representatives of getting anything like fair or decent justice? The argument of the Government was that they wanted extra help, because they desired to do the work of the Irish Office better. The Irish Office, they said, was undermanned, and they had made this appointment because they desired that Irish Questions should be more thoroughly dealt with. That was a fair proposition for debate; but its bonâ fides could only be tested by having regard to the character of the Gentleman appointed. Was it reasonable to suppose that if he put a Question with regard to arrears, with regard to the working of the Land Act, with regard to rack-renting, with regard to evictions, with regard to any one of these things which formed, to a large extent, from an agrarian point of view, the core of the Irish Question, he would get a proper reply from such a man as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? He saw sitting opposite one of the largest landowners in the South of Ireland, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. SmithBarry), a Gentleman who had never had any difference with his tenants, and a Gentleman against whom no personal accusations had been made. There were dozens of English Gentlemen with Irish experience who might have been appointed to the Office, and who might have been supposed to throw themselves sympathetically into this work. But what had the Government done? Whereas for centuries Irish Secretaries had been Englishmen or Scotchmen, the first infusion of Hiberian blood into the Irish Office took the shape of the appointment of the most obnoxious Irishman existing in the four Provinces of Ireland. He had never joined in the complaint that Irishmen had not been appointed to the Office of Irish Secretary. If they had to carry on government in Ireland by English prejudices, it really made very little difference whether they had Englishmen, Scotchmen, Welshmen, or even Hindoos in the official positions; they would be equally unsympa- thetic and equally ignorant. The Irish Secretary (Mr. A. J. Balfour) came over to Ireland with nothing against him but Tory prejudices—the prejudices of his birth, training, and education. He had not the native virus; but the Gentleman appointed Parliamentary Under Secretary was a man who had boxed the compass of Irish politics, who had tacked and sailed under every political flag, and who, in addition, was the most obnoxious man connected with Irish affairs at the present day. Could the Irish Members be expected to submit tamely to conditions such as these? In conclusion, he invited English Members to test the working of the Crimes Act and of the Land Act, to test the working of Irish Local Government by the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. He asked them if they could go to their constituents and say they were working Ireland thoroughly and squarely and working it in the interests of the Irish people, and feel in their hearts at the same time they were uttering sentiments which were true. He ventured to say that if they took a ballot amongst the Nationalist Party as to who was the most obnoxious politician in Ireland, 999 out of every 1,000 votes would be recorded for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) had humour, and if there was anything Irishmen were fond of it was a little fun. When they were attacked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman they could always laugh at his jokes, although those jokes might hurt some of them. But whoever heard of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet making a joke? From every conceivable point of view the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's appointment was hostile to every feeling and fibre of the Irish nature. Looked at in any way they liked he offered to this measure the strongest opposition that it was possible for a man to offer. He thought the Government might have acted reasonably if they required additional support and power. They did not require additional support and power, but they wanted to add one more brand to the burning that was crackling under the Irish pot; they wanted to add one more thorn to those in the Irish side; they wanted to add one more aggravation to the aggravations the Irish people had to bear, and they had succeeded in this by the appointment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

said, he did not propose to detain the Committee at any length. He only wished to say that he had made up his mind to vote against this Bill at every stage. In half-a-dozen sentences he would explain to the Committee the reasons which influenced him. He positively objected to reinforce the ranks of Dublin Castle officialism in this way. Land Commissioners had been appointed and others were about to be appointed. What were the tenants to think when they found the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman) with his hands on the springs of the machinery of Dublin Castle? He said deliberately on behalf of his constituents that they viewed this appointment as an open declaration of war, and as their Representative he should oppose it.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

said, he desired to offer one or two suggestions which would relieve the Government of their difficulty and the House of the consumption of a large amount of time, to say nothing of the charge upon the public purse. He was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland say that the work in Ireland was too much for him alone, because he had noticed of late an increasing tendency on the part of the right hon. Gentleman not only to manage the affairs of Ireland, but to manage the affairs of Scotland also. They had at least two hon. and learned Gentlemen sitting on the Government Bench who were well able to take care of the affairs of Scotland, and who were paid for doing so, and he suggested as one means of getting out of this difficulty that the Irish Secretary should attend to Irish Business and that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland should attend to Scotch Business. It was a most remarkable fact that although they had a very able hon. and learned Gentleman in the Solicitor General for Scotland, he (Mr. Hunter) did not think he had ever heard that hon. and learned Gentleman speak upon Scotch matters, of which he, no doubt, knew a great deal, but he had heard him speak upon Irish affairs about which he, no doubt, knew nothing. There was another way in which this difficulty might be got over. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said, and of course he could not contradict him, that he was not able to discharge the duties of his Office alone as all previous Chief Secretaries had been able to do. That must arise either from a want of capacity or a want of industry. He thought he would have the assent of the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he was at least as capable as any of his Predecessors, and he was not sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not agree with him if he went further and said that he was even more able than any of his Predecessors. If, therefore, considering that there had been no enlargement of the duties of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that they were precisely the same duties as those discharged by other Chief Secretaries, the right hon. Gentleman found himself unable to do the work, it must be from a lack of industry. He had great sympathy with lazy men, but he was bound to remember, in the interests of the taxpayers, that the right hon. Gentleman received £4,500 a year, and a residence in Ireland, which was maintained by the public for his sole enjoyment. What he submitted was this, that if the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to employ an assistant, his object might be gained by a devolution of his salary which should be in exact proportion to the amount given to the assistant. He protested in the interest of the taxpayers against this additional sum being cast upon them upon grounds that were totally insufficient.

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

said, he rose merely for the purpose of asking seriously whether they were not to have any reply whatever from the Government Bench to the exceedingly grave charges that had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy)? He thought that, apart altogether from the indisputable humour and brilliancy of the invective of the hon. and learned Member, the hon. and learned Member had established, on very good evidence, charges which ought to be answered before they proceeded any further with this business. Why was not the right hon. and gallant Member (Colonel King-Harman), who was most concerned, present to answer for himself? If he had so little confidence in the justice of his own claims as to shirk the answer necessary to the charges which he must have known in his conscience would be made against him in this House, why did not his patron and protector answer for him, or why did not some other Member of the Government answer for him? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary rose to protest against the introduction into the discussion of what he called the "private affairs" of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman his assistant. Private affairs! which concerned the cruel treatment of a poor tenant of a bit of bog in Ireland. Private affairs touched the springs of all public affairs in Ireland. Private affairs had been the secret of all public misery in Ireland. He did not feel competent to enter into the details of the question, and did not rise for the purpose of doing so; but he earnestly hoped that some reply would be made to the charges which had been levelled against the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King-Harman). Right hon. Gentlemen upon the Government Bench very much deceived themselves if they supposed that no effect was produced by appeals to the English people such as had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford. The English people were slow; but little by little an impression was being made upon the hearts and consciences of the people of England, which would result in the throwing off altogether of the yoke of injustice, which would become more intolerable to them than it was to the Irish people. It was nothing less than a scandal that an appointment like this should have been made by the Government. The appointment revolted against all the best feelings, not of the Irish people only, but of the English, Scotch, and Welsh people as well, and the Government would find it out. It was monstrous that they should be called upon to go to a vote in this matter without any reply whatever from the Government Bench.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) asked why the Government made no reply to the speech delivered by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), a speech which for quality and style of Parliamentary eloquence appeared to commend itself to the hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) did not think he had ever heard a speech in the House of Commons which was a greater violation of every canon of good taste than the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that was the reason why he had not risen to reply to what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said. The hon. Member for Leicester had asked why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) was not in his place to reply to the charges which had been levelled against him. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) did not send out to his right hon. and gallant Friend to tell him that there was a personal attack being made upon him, because he thought that the attack was wholly unworthy of any notice. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford made a speech which he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) understood, from the ruling of the Chairman, was perfectly in Order. Though it was perfectly in Order, it was, by the admission of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, in no sense relevant to the creation of the new Office, which was the subject which principally concerned the Committee at the present moment, but simply related to the merits or demerits of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who would perform the duties of the Office. The personal attack, the character of which he had sufficiently described to the Committee, consisted, so far as he could recollect the details, of accusations against the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, not made for the first time, but which had been over and over again refuted. It had pleased the hon. and learned Gentleman to rake up every story, true or false, every accusation which malignance had been able to invent during the last 20 years, to throw at the head of one of the most honourable and distinguished Gentlemen who ornamented this House. It would be wholly unworthy of the debates in the House of Commons that any more detailed, any more prolonged or serious reply should be given to those accusations than he had now made.

MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

said, he had no doubt that hon. Members on that side of the House would agree that no sort of reply had been made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the very strong case made out by the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy). The hon. and learned Gentleman did not rake up every story told during the last 20 years against the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. Had he done so, his speech would have occupied a considerably longer time. He (Mr. J. E. Ellis) noticed that the First Lord of the Treasury had just returned to his place. He might perhaps be allowed to express the hope that in this very serious matter—namely, the appointment of an Assistant to the Chief Secretary at a cost to the taxpayers of £1,000 per annum, the right hon. Gentleman would allow the Committee free discussion and not resort to the force of the closure. He would not detain the Committee, but only say, speaking as an English Member of Parliament and as one who probably passed more days in Ireland during 1887 than the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself, that he endorsed all that was said by the hon. and learned Member for Longford as to the manner in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanot was viewed by his fellow-countrymen. One could not go into County Roscommon or into the district about Boyle without knowing what the people thought of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It was a scandal and a reproach to Her Majesty's Government that they should propose to the House of Commons the appointment of such a man.

MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

said, it was a singular fact that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had acknowledged to-night that his Deputy, the man who stood between him and the administration of local government in Ireland, was the very man who, in this House in 1886, took upon himself the task of moving the rejection of the Poor Law Guardians Bill, a Bill which was to amend the law relating to a certain system of local government in Ireland. The ground on which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman op- posed that Bill was that he desired to see the power possessed by ex officio Guardians in Ireland preserved intact. When such was the view of the one who was put forward as the figure-head of the future local administration in Ireland, the Irish people saw plainly that Her Majesty's Government had not even the pretence of sincerity in their profession of a desire to administer fairly local government in Ireland. It was said that this Office was being created with the view of a better discharge of the duties of the Chief Secretary. If the appointment of an Assistant would tend to a more faithful discharge of the right hon. Gentleman's duties, no one would venture to oppose the creation of the Office; but, as a matter of fact, they were in such a position that they had to deal with the incumbent of the Office. They knew already the article they had to deal with. They knew what they were to pay for, and who, in Heaven's name, could grumble at their opposition when they found that the article was spurious? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King- Harman) represented to them the Grand Jury system, of Ireland in its most odious form; he represented the present magisterial system and the present monopoly of power by ex officio Guardians. In addition to this, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was notorious for his rack-renting capabilities. It was, therefore, absurd for the Government to think they would in any way ease the friction in Ireland by the appointment of this Gentleman to an onerous post in the House of Commons, which carried with it practically the Presidency of the Local Government Board in Ireland. Furthermore, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would occupy a prominent position in connection with the Prisons Board. Were they to have a rack-renter of the tenants of Ireland answering Questions put in the House concerning the grievances of those tenants? Was the same man to be not only their political opponent in the House, paid for his position, but possibly their defamer in the country, and also their gaoler when they asserted the rights of the people? The Chief Secretary for Ireland certainly had very important duties to perform if he would perform them. What was alleged in Ireland was that the right hon. Gentle- man performed only the vicious part of his duties, leaving the useful part of them undone. It was believed in Ireland that it was the right hon. Gentleman's presence at the only meeting of the Local Government Board he ever attended which caused the dismissal of the doctor who was imprisoned under the Coercion Act. There was a singular fact in regard to Dr. Hayes, of Tralee. An hon. Member of the House was prosecuted under the Crimes Act for certain proceedings on Dr. Hayes' estate, and the doctor was asked by the Local District Inspector to give evidence that he was intimidated. Dr. Hayes refused to do this; and upon his refusal the prosecution was abandoned, until the Government thought fit to revive it, when the doctor swore that he was never intimidated; that, so far as he knew, none of his people were intimidated, and that he was quite willing to leave to the hon. Gentleman prosecuted the settlement of the whole question, A few days afterwards application was made for the sanction of the Local Government Board to the appointment of Dr. Hayes to a certain position; but the Board, who had never in its history refused an increase in the salary of a medical officer, refused it in the case of Dr. Hayes. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was the Head of the Local Government Board, and he was present at the meeting at which the application was refused. If the statement was true that the work last Session was too heavy for the right hon. Gentleman, what was the answer to it? They were over the work now. It had been ostentatiously proclaimed from the Front Bench that there was to be an un-Irish or a non-Irish Session. When they wanted help on the Irish Question they got it very readidly. In the great debate on the introduction of the Crimes Act one of the most eloquent and effective speeches delivered was that delivered by the Solicitor General for Scotland (Mr. J. P. B. Robertson), who was believed to have nothing to do but to lend a loyal hand on the Irish Question. Then, there was the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), who had been able to find time to go to Ireland to enlighten the people upon questions which concerned themselves. Surely, the Civil Lord could be called in to lend a hand occasionally to the Government; it would not be a great strain on him, even in conjunction with his own duties, to do so. The Government, on their own showing, had no need of further help. Certainly, it was most odious to the Irish Members that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel King - Harman) should read out to them the answers to their Questions. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had no personal knowledge on the Questions put to him; and, owing to the character he enjoyed, it was impossible the tenants of Ireland could place any reliance on the answers or even the promises which he gave. He and his hon. Friends not only objected to the creation of the Office of Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, but they objected, and they had shown very good reasons why, to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman being chosen to fill the Office. Reference had been made to their feelings towards hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he believed there was no one who sat upon the Ministeral Benches whose appointment could be so offensive to them as that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet. Why did the Government not choose, if they were bound to appoint someone, a Conservative Gentleman representing an Irish constituency? What was their idea with regard to future administration in Ireland? Were hon. Members to judge it by the appointment that had virtually been announced to-night? Having made this appointment, would the Government go to the country with the profession on their lips that the people of Ireland and England were to be governed by the same laws? In one sense he was not sorry the Government had put up the most hideous figure-head they could possibly get, because their action would show to the people of England how just and reasonable was the protest of the Irish Members against the system of administration in Ireland. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a magistrate—

MR. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the Question be now put:"—

The House divided:—Ayes 190; Noes 130: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 34.)

Question put, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a Salary to the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

The House divided:—Ayes 182; Noes 132: Majority 50—(Div. List, No. 35.)

It being after ten minutes to Seven o'clock the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress.

The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.

The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.