§
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £10,970 14s. 2d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services, for the year ended on the 31 at day of March, 1888.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)I certainly should have expected that some Member of the Government would have volunteered an explanation in regard to this Vote. It is an irregular Vote, intended to cover an illegality which has been exposed on more than one occasion by hon. Members on this side of the House, and it the Government insist on trying to get it passed to-night, we shall not only be assisting in covering an irregularity, but we shall be delaying discussion on two or three very burning questions which are likely to be raised in connection with this Excess Vote. Up to the present time we have had no explanation from any Member of Her Majesty's Government, and especially from that Member who is most directly responsible for the Vote, of the system under which the Court Valuers are appointed, or who recommends them, 234 what are their qualifications, and what class of persons is appointed. From time to time, Mr. Courtney, in this House, hon. Members below the Gangway have had to protest against the manner in which the administration of the Land Acts in Ireland has been gerrymandered in the interests of the landlords, and I think this complaint is most glaring in connection with the appointment of Court Valuers. These Valuers have all been appointed under Section 32 of the Land Act of 1887, and they consist either of landlords themselves, or of near relatives of landlords, or of landlord's agents, and surely, when one remembers the long series of Land Acts which have been brought in for the pacification of Ireland, it might have been thought that if the Government had had the smallest particle of common sense—if they had recognized their duty to the country—they would have gone to any length, rather than have given the people of Ireland fair cause for suspicion that there was any partiality exercised by them in this matter. But, as a fact, they have gone to the other extreme. Notorious landlord partizans have been appointed to advise County Court Judges in the settlement of rent disputes. We were not aware that the Government would have had the temerity to bring on this Vote to-night, or we would have been prepared with particulars of the most glaring instances of partizanship in the administration of the Act. In consequence of the mal-administration of the Act, it brings no benefit to the people in whose interests it is supposed to have been passed, and I must say that the appointments of County Court Valuers have given rise to the strongest suspicions amongst the tenants that they have not been made impartially. Indeed, I would suggest that the appointments stand out as the most discreditable acts of the Administration. I have a list here of about 30 men, who have been appointed under the section, and I defy the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to point out any single one of them who possess the confidence of the tenantry in the north, south, east, or west of Ireland. I believe that one of the valuers so appointed is a brother-in-law of the hon. Gentleman who represents the landlords of South Tyrone. In my own district, a gentleman has been 235 appointed who was always known as a notorious landlord's valuer; another valuer of Miltown Malbay is a well-known landlord, who, at the last Kilrush Quarter Sessions, served process for rent on one of his tenants because he had applied to the Court for relief, and this same valuer had acted for years as agent for his brother Then, again, an agent of Lord Clanricarde has been appointed, and is it possible to expect that the tenants will regard as fair Tents which are fixed by men of this character? Again, we have Mr. George Trench, a cousin of one of the worst rack-renters in the county of Cork, and yet you are surprised that there are disturbances in that county—you are surprised that you have to send the police and military to assist the bailiffs in collecting the rents. It is perfectly understood that the County Court Judge, though he has a knowledge of the law, is not necessarily a good judge of land and able to fix the rents, and that is why power was given for the appointment of these valuers to assist him. But it was never intended that the valuers should be landlords, or their agents. Now our grievances are that we have never been able to get any information as to the grounds on which the appointments are made, the qualifications of the men appointed, and the system pursued in making the appointments, and I think, therefore, in view of what we consider to be the shameless partizan character of the appointments, we are justified in opposing this Vote.
§ *MR. A. J. BALFOURI may say in the first place that the appointments are not made by the Government, but by the County Court Judge. The man appointed must be either a landlord, a landlord's agent, or a tenant, or he could have no sufficient knowledge of the land. That is my second point, and my third is that the tenants are not obliged to go into these Courts; it is optional for them to go before the Land Commission appointed under the Act of 1881. Now, I am not the author of the Act which gives this alternative tribunal, because I think alternative tribunals are open to objection.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThe right hon. Gentleman has stated that he is not the author of this particular system. But it strikes me that he is the author of it 236 under section 32 of the Act of 1887, and yet he has the audacity to get up in this House and put the blame on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, whereas it is in his own Act of Parliament that the provision is made for the appointment of valuers to aid the County Court Judges in performing the duties imposed on them by the Act. This conduct is characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman. He says in the balmiest way that he is not the author of the Act, yet here is the section in his own Act of Parliament. As a specimen of the right hon. Gentleman's administration I commend it to the notice of the country.
§ *MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. and learned Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Undoubtedly under the Act of 1881 the County Court Judges had the same jurisdiction, although it is perfectly true that power to appoint the valuers is given in the Act of 1887. I may add that my recollection is that the valuers are not appointed by the Lord Lieutenant.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY; Here again the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cork complained of the partizan character of these gentlemen, he got up and said, "They are not appointed under our Act, and I am not responsible for the Act of 1881." Upon that I quoted the section, to show that for the first time the court valuers were created under the Act of 1887, and then he says the Lord Lieutenant does not appoint them. But the Act says they are appointed subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant. Who is the Lord Lieutenant? Why, it is practically the Chief Secretary; for the Lord Lieutenant is always over here boat and horse racing. Will the right hon. Gentleman contradict that? I fear he may, for he would contradict the Twelve Apostles if they stood here. Notwithstanding his denial of responsibility, I repeat that the appointments are made subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant. I have no doubt, nevertheless, that despite this exposure of the inaccuracy of the right hon. Gentleman's statements, hon. Members will still go to their constituents, and praise the splendid, impartial, and manly administration of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ *MR. W. A. M'ARTHUR (Cornwall, Mid., St. Austell)Notwithstanding that I always enjoy the little disputes between my hon. Friends from Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, I find that at 1 o'clock at night the enjoyment considerably diminishes. We have been here nearly 12 hours, we have to be here again at noon this day; and as the Government has done a fair amount of business, and as they cannot fairly say that public business has been obstructed, I beg to move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ *MR. GOSCHENI hope the hon. Member will not press his Motion. We have made some progress, and we are most anxious that these Excess Votes should be disposed of. I hope we may be allowed to finish the small number of Votes that remain.
§ MR. SEXTONI trust the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to reconsider his decision. Only one of the several questions involved in the Excess Vote has been discussed, and he will surely recognize that from the nature of the controversy which has arisen between the hon. Member for North Longford and the Chief Secretary some time further must elapse before the point can be settled. Then there is the larger question behind of those hybrid functionaries—the Divisional Magistrates—who resemble more than anyone else the Governor of a Turkish province. I shall be obliged to raise the whole question as to the manner in which the salaries of these officials are being legalized. Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot expect the Committee to sit more than half an hour or an hour longer, and as it is not within the bounds of possibility to explain our views on the question in so short a time, I think we had better adjourn now and begin afresh to-morrow.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give way on this point. The Government possess a very remarkable power of prolonging debates, but we are prepared to sit as long as they like. The whole of this evening no Irish question has been discussed. I do say it is not fair to us and to the 238 interests which we represent to take an important discussion like this after one o'clock at night. It cannot make much difference to the Government. They intend to get certain business through by Thursday night, and it cannot make much difference to them whether we rise an hour later or now. It does matter to us a great deal. At an earlier hour of the evening, the light hon. Gentleman taunted Scotch Members with talking in order to have their speeches reported in the Scotch newspapers. Well if the Scotch Members may do that, surely the Members of a much maligned and misrepresented Party ought not to be compelled to discuss Irish questions at an hour when they cannot be reported.
§ *MR. GOSCHENI wish it were in my power to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member. But we want the time. Eight hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench wish to discuss the Vote on Account, and the time we can give them is limited, so that I do not think it would be fair to them to leave over these subjects for to-morrow. The question of the appointment of valuers for instance, which has been debated, is one which ought to be discussed on the Vote itself and not on an Excess Vote. If questions of principle are to be raised on Excess Votes we shall never get through our business. Then, as to the question which the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin wishes to raise, it is merely a technical question, and I do appeal to hon. Members seeing that there is so much business to be taken to-morrow, to allow us to proceed with these Excess Votes. Hon. Members offer to go on to an unlimited time to-morrow, but the First Lord of the Treasury has stated he hopes the House will not sit long after 6 p.m.
§ *MR. LANE (Cork, Co. E.)I wish to call attention to the fact that it is not merely Irish questions which are raised by this Excess Vote. Hon. Members representing English constituencies have waited for an opportunity to discuss other questions raised by this Vote. If we pass it now we shall be condoning a very grave irregularity against which the Public Accounts Committee have protested for the last four or five years. A Constitutional question is involved in this attempt to condone an illegality. Hon. 239 Members here are determined to discuss the question from a legal point of view. They want to know what right the Irish Law Officers of the Crown have to suggest to the Lords of the Treasury means by which they may evade the responsibility which the Government have incurred here year after year by promising to bring in a Bill to legalize payments which have been regularized by the Appropriation Act every year. Although the Government has introduced that Bill every year for five years they have never attempted to pass it, and the proposal now made is simply intended to do away with the necessity for passing the Bill. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find it more prudent and more conducive to the saving of the time of the House if he consents to this adjournment, for if he refuses the debate must necessarily be prolonged.
§ MR. SEXTONThe right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is under a complete misapprehension when he says this is a technical question. It is a question of substance and one of great importance, because certain salaries have been illegally paid during the last five years, and now it is sought to legalize them by simply changing the names of the officers. We are entitled on this Vote to question the nature of the offices held by these gentlemen, and the utility of the services which they perform. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to clôture the debate, I can only say it will be a rather uncommon step to take on a matter of such importance. It would also exasperate hon. Members, whereas by consenting to the adjournment the question might be satisfactorily disposed of in a short time to-morrow.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI think this Vote ought to have been brought on first in the evening. Now, for the first time for four years, we have an opportunity of discussing this important matter, it is not fair for the Secretary to the Treasury to put down this Vote at so late an hour especially as he is the person who issued the Treasury Minute with respect to this unusual transaction, and as the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee condemn it. I do not see why this Vote of £10,000 should not be put off to a later period of the Session, when it can be properly discussed. Remember 240 that these gentlemen will get their salaries whatever the House does. If we lose this opportunity we shall not be able to raise the question on any other Vote, and therefore I ask the Government to withdraw it and bring it on later in the Session.
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene and make a statement which will clear up a little misapprehension as to the scope of the present Vote. This Excess Vote refers to the year ended the 31st of March, 1888. It comes on on the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee, and it is proposed to be taken, as is invariably done in these cases, after the Supplementary Estimates. The very important legal question which the hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin desire to raise can be properly discussed on the Estimates for the coming year, and cannot be properly raised on a Vote for the year ending March, 1888. The proper time to discuss it will be when the suggestion is acted upon, and comes into operation.
§ MR. SEXTONThe point I desire to refer to is not so much the illegality of the course pursued. I wish to protest against the the payment of excess, and to convince the Committee that these offices should not continue to exist.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 121.—(Div. List, No. 29.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. SEXTONI presume that the explanation promised by the Government with regard to this matter will be made, now that a debate is forced upon the Committee. Instead of having an Excess Vote, we are informed by the Comptroller and Auditor General that there ought to be a surplus of £300 upon this Vote. How has the excess of £700 arisen? It is because the Executive have used public money to make payments not allowed by law. It is because a certain class of Divisional Magistrates in Ireland have for five years been paid a high salary, which is illegal. I consider the existence of this class of public officials is opposed to the public interest. They are a kind of secret and irresponsible agents between the Government in Dublin Castle and the landlords and the forces of the 241 Crown. We find the Divisional Magistrates sometimes directing the movements of soldiers and police; at other times in command of them at evictions and public meetings; then directing a magisterial examination; and finally ordering what Magistrates shall proceed from one district to another in order to try certain cases. Now, I protest against their performing functions of a judicial character. I say that at times they have acted shamefully and unfairly. There is Mr. Cecil Roche, who tried Mr. Latchford, and who nominated a magistrate to try Mr. W. O'Brien, who had so severely held him up to public condemnation. Although the Committee of Public Accounts have year after year warned the Government that this payment was illegal, it has been continued. The Government, in these circumstances, might have lowered the salaries, or passed an Act to authorize the payment; but they take neither of those courses. They adopt, on the contrary, a course which is neither straightforward nor frank, and which is unprecedented. They seek to legalize the payment by simply changing the title of the Magistrate's office, while he continues to discharge the same duties and to enjoy the same salary. The Lord Chancellor, indeed, has been called in to the rescue, and now we are to have not a paid Divisional Magistrate, but a paid Justice of the Peace. The Lord Lieutenant has withdrawn the warrants held hitherto by these Divisional Magistrates; he has, in fact, disrobed them; but the Lord Chancellor, instead, is putting their names on the Commission of the Peace. What do Englishmen say to paid Justices of the Peace? There are, I know, paid Magistrates in England, but they derive their power from Statute Law. I think that these new officials may best be compared with the French Prefect; they are to be responsible to the Lord Lieutenant, and they in turn will have control over the resident magistrates, who are magistrates for all Ireland, while their superior officers can only exercise magisterial powers in limited districts. A more extraordinary and more ridiculous proposal never challenged the attention of the House than to give an official with inferior magisterial jurisdiction a higher salary and the control 242 over magistrates having wider judicial powers. I protest strongly against the creation of this executive monster in order to escape from the effects of an illegality. I contend also that these offices are superfluous and constitute an, evil.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down did not take the advice which was given from the Chair, to the effect that the more convenient time to discuss the legality or propriety of the course taken by the Government with regard to the status of the Commissioners was not the present occasion, but on the first occasion when a Vote is asked for for the payment of their salaries in the future. But as he refused to act on the suggestion, I am bound to deal with the arguments which he has put forward. He has said that we have acted illegally. Undoubtedly there has been an irregularity, commented upon year after year by the Public Accounts Committee; but to say that payments authorized by the House and passed through all the stages of a Vote afterwards embodied in a Bill are illegal seems to me to be a misuse of words. He has described the Commissioners as hybrid functionaries, half judicial and half executive. But he is mistaken; they are entirely executive; they have no judicial functions at all.
§ MR. SEXTONDo they not direct what Resident Magistrates shall try cases under the Crimes Act?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThey may have done so, although the duty appertains rather to Dublin Castle. It is not, however, a judicial function; it is purely an executive act. The right hon. Gentleman complains we have not acted fairly in thus bringing the matter forward. But the Government have laid on the Table a Minute fully explaining the whole matter; and we cannot be fairly charged with any want of frankness in regard to it. The hon. Member is greatly exercised by the change which has been made in the functions of these officers; but that change is a purely technical, and not a substantial one, and it certainly need not and ought not to be made a sufficient reason for a long debate at this hour of the morning (five minutes to 2 o'clock), when so many other occasions must shortly arise on 243 which the question might be raised, and raised, too, with far greater propriety than it can be now. Let me point out that Lord Spencer is the statesman to whom we owe the institution of this office; the officials were highly valued too by Mr. Forster, as no doubt they were by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle. I certainly do not the less value their services.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThe right hon. Gentleman speaks of this as a very small matter which need not occupy much time. But as he has chosen to bring it on at this hour he must not blame us for seeking to have it adequately discussed. My chief complaint in the present business lies against Lord Ashbourne, who, sitting in the Court of Appeal, plays into the hands of the Government by the creation of these officials, and making them all Magistrates for a group of counties—one of the most unparalleled and scandalous acts ever done by a public functionary. As a matter of fact, these Magistrates have not even a local habitation in the counties where they are in the Commission of the Peace. Remember the position which these men occupy. Mr. Forster, finding the country getting out of hand in the year 1881, devised means as he said of getting more into touch with it, and he at once created a number of gentlemen like Captain Plunket—this most malodorous man in the public nostril—and put them into these positions. Lord Spencer expended the system and really gave it to us in its present form. There was a famous Minute issued in the year 1882 about these gentlemen, dividing the whole country into divisions and placing each division under the charge of one of these officials. Under Mr. Forster they no doubt exercised magisterial functions, for Mr. Clifford Lloyd used to sit at Mallow and apply to the people brought before him the same law as he had been in the habit of administering to Belfast prostitutes—he bound them over to keep the peace. Then came the passing of the Crimes Act of 1882, at which time we got a promise that the executive offices and judicial offices should be separated. At that time it was never intended that the position of County Magistrates should be impinged upon. It was always considered that a 244 County Magistrate was a person owning land in the county, or, at least, having some stake in it. But these Divisional Magistrates do not own land in any of She counties in which they are now to act. I really cannot see any change in their legal status. It is true that they have ceased to be Resident Magistrates, but to all intents and purposes they continue to exercise their former functions. What has been done after all is only a gross evasion of the law. ["No, no."] Well, if you do not like that term we will call it a novelty, and I will say that the last person who ought to start a novelty of this sort is the Keeper of the Queen's Conscience in Ireland—the Lord Chancellor. He is a high officer of State, and I suppose he is so called because he gets the high salary of £8,000 a year. But he is not like the English Lord Chancellor, because one of his duties is to sit in a Court of Law, and recently he had before him three or four appeals in which Resident Magistrates were concerned, and in each case he has given his decision in their favour The Lord Lieutenant, acting under the pressure of the Public Accounts Committee, deprived these Divisional Magistrates of the warrants under which they acted. Lord Ashbourne, being a Member of the Cabinet, would, it might be supposed, utterly disdain to be mixed up in a matter of this kind; but what does he do? He comes very promptly to the rescue of the Government, and these very men, from whom the Lord Lieutenant has withdrawn his warrant, he creates Justices of the Peace for groups of counties. What else does he do? Remember that not long since, because Mr. James Byrne travelled a few miles out of his own Petty Sessional district to adjudicate in a charge brought against a policeman of breaking a man's head—and in that case the defendant was fined ten shillings—Lord Ashbourne at once asked the Magistrate what business he had to go outside his Petty Sessional district, and when the authority of Lord O'Hagan was quoted for the Act the Lord Chancellor said that did not matter to him, and he dismissed Mr. Byrne from the Commission of the Peace, Well, this very Lord Chancellor goes and appoints Magistrates who are to act not merely just outside their own Petty Sessional districts, but for whole groups 245 of counties. I believe, for instance, that Captain Slack is put on the Commission of the Peace for 12 different counties. Lord Ashbourne has the audacity, having removed Mr. Byrne from the Commission of the Peace for travelling 15 miles in his own county, to help the Government, like a lame dog, over the stile, and give these Divisional Magistrates very unusual and extended powers. The Home Secretary appears to find this very funny; no doubt he found it very funny when he admitted Pigott to see John Daly, but I do not think it desirable that the quips and cranks and wreathy smiles of the Home Secretary should be imported into this debate. Perhaps his only reason for laughing is because among the counties I mentioned as those over which Captain Slack had jurisdiction, was the County of Waterford, in which Dungarvan is situated, that being the constituency in which Mr. Pigott helped him to a seat in this House. Now, I say it is not right that, at this hour of the night, we should be compelled to challenge the conduct of the highest executive officer in this way. I can only repeat that the conduct of Lord Ashbourne in this matter has been unparalleled, un precedented, and most regrettable. We are told that these Divisional Magistrates do not exercise magisterial functions at all, but it is rather difficult to define what are judicial functions. Last year I questioned the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in reference to a charge brought against Mr. Latch-ford, a millowner and Justice of the Peace in Tralee, a man of moderate Nationalist opinions, who had got into a dispute with another magistrate, who was also a millowner, but who was not of Nationalist opinions. The dispute had reference to a right of water-way, and the men employed by each of the disputants took up the quarrel, with the result that there was something in the nature of a tipsy riot. Now, the Crimes Act was passed to deal purely with conspiracies and agrarian crimes and matters of that kind, but when a summons for riot was taken out against Mr. Latchford, Colonel Turner directed that he should be tried by Mr. Cecil Roche, with whom he had been in the habit of sitting on the Bench at Tralee, and from whose decisions he had found it 246 necessary constantly to dissent in consequence of the harsh manner in which people were treated. Now, Mr. Roche hated this Magistrate with the natural hatred of a man who occupies a position in which he is paid a salary to be obnoxious to people—Mr. Roche being a man who, be it remembered, had been dismissed from the Land Commission for drunkenness—yet he was appointed to the position of a magistrate—
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to adhere to his argument, as he very well knows how to do.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYVery well, Sir, I will keep my references to Mr. Roche for another occasion. What I wish to say is that it was a monstrous use of the Crimes Act to try Mr. Latchford under it for an offence arising out of a question as to water rights, and I think that Colonel Turner must certainly be considered to have exercised judicial powers when he directed such a trial. He also clearly exercised judicial powers when he chose the Magistrate who should preside at the trial. Now, I take issue upon this Vote, first in regard to the salaries paid to these officials, and, next, I take issue on the extraordinary bastard powers which are conferred, upon them by the Lord Chancellor, and I venture to say that the people of Ireland cannot but condemn these wholesale payments in excess of the law, and also the manner in which the appointments are made.
§ MR. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)I think that this is a Vote on which direct issue should be joined at the earliest possible moment. The Chief Secretary says in this matter concealment was impossible and frankness obligatory, and he therefore takes credit for frankness. But I venture to point out that when the Solicitor General for Ireland was recently questioned as to the reason for the change of names he gave a very different version to that now stated by the Chief Secretary. I do not see how their claim for frankness is well founded; I say that this is a violation of the Statute and not a mere irregularity. We have been told by 247 the right hon. Gentleman that these officials do not exercise judicial functions. But the right hon. Gentleman well knows that they were appointed under the Act 6 and 7 William IV., c. 13, and when that Act was passed, only magistrates with judicial functions were contemplated. What becomes now of the frankness of the right hon. Gentleman? I wish the House to understand that the Government have year after year admitted the illegality of the sum charged in the Vote. A Treasury Minute to legalize the payment was issued on the 15th of February last, and now we are asked to consent to the retrospective effect of the Minute issued ten months after the end of the financial year in which the particular charge was made, in order to whitewash the Government. With these facts before it, is the House going to condone this illegality and irregularity simply because the Government have resorted to a certain device? Whether the device is sound enough to purge them of their illegality is a matter to be settled hereafter. I do not think the Committee should condone the illegality, and I, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,118.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,852 14s. 2d., be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI really think we are entitled to be told under what circumstances Lord Ashbourne made these appointments. We have raised many important questions, and are entitled to have some explanation. We have pointed out, for instance, the unparalleled act of the Lord Chancellor in appointing as magistrates for groups of counties men who have not sufficient land to "sod a lark." I challenge the English Attorney General to quote a similar instance in England, and I do submit that we are entitled to some better defence of the Government action than we have yet heard.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI may point out that the hon. Member followed me after I had endeavoured to reply to all the arguments which had been brought forward up to that time, and now he 248 complains that I did not answer his argument at once. The result of the change which has been made is that the area over which these magistrates have power has been diminished and not increased; and the magisterial functions of these gentlemen has a parallel in London, where the magistrates have jurisdiction over the whole of the Home Counties, extending, I believe, as far as Berkshire. As to whether the magisterial appointments were made by the Lord Chancellor or otherwise, that question appear to me to be utterly unworthy of serious attention on the part of the Committee.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI venture to suggest that the case of the London stipendiaries is not a parallel case to this. Sir James Ingham may have power over the Home Counties, but it is probably given him by statute, just as in the same manner the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary is by statute made a magistrate for the whole of Ireland. I say Lord Ashbourne ought not to interfere in any executive function in Ireland, because, as a Member of the Cabinet, being a Judge, he ought to keep himself clean and sweet from interference in these matters. Why, I ask, should Mr. Byrne be removed from the Commission of the Peace for acting just outside his Petty Sessional District, whilst the official who removed him appoints Captain Slack, with power to range at will over the whole Province of Leinster? That is a plain question which demands an answer.
§ *MR. LANEOnly last Friday I asked the Chief Secretary for the reason for the change of the name of these officials. He replied that it was a mere matter of form. The Solicitor General on being asked if there was any other reason for the change, said he was not aware of it. Why did he not give me the real answer then? I think we are fully entitled to discuss this Vote. It is not unusual for these Divisional Magistrates to appoint the Resident Magistrates to try cases under the Crimes Act, and 249 then sit on the Bench beside them. I remember in the case of my own trial Captain Plunkett brought up to Cork a Resident Magistrate from the town of Bantry and another from Limerick, as he had good reasons for not selecting a magistrate in the immediate neighbourhood, and as I had subpœnaed himself as a witness he brought up Captain Slack to take charge of the troops outside the Court. Captain Slack, after conversation with Captain Plunkett, took his seat on the Bench by the side of the Resident Magistrates, until I was obliged to order him to leave the Bench. This shows clearly, Sir, that the Divisional Magistrates are not as represented by the Chief Secretary, merely executive, as distinct from judicial, functionaries. Captain Plunkett treated with contempt magistrates of Cork belonging to all political parties, who at two successive meetings called on him to direct the prosecution of a certain person. Why, he not only ignored the meetings to which he was invited, but he absolutely refused to order the prosecutions. Anyone who watches the conduct of these officials must come to the conclusion that they seem to think they are paid for no other purpose than to exasperate the people of Ireland into bloodshed and riot. Wherever Captain Plunkett has been he has been responsible for wanton and unnecessary sacrifice of life. It was in his division that O'Hanlon lost his life by being stabbed by his police in Youghal. It was in his division, and under his subordinates, the three men were shot in Mitchelstown. It was by his subordinate that Ahern was murdered in Midleton. Rioting follows his footsteps, and it is monstrous that we should be called upon to vote excess salaries to such men as Plunkett.
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)I do not think the Government should feel any surprise at the strength of the protest made on this occasion, when we consider, first, the course of events in Ireland under the administration of these Divisional Magistrates, and, secondly, the most exceptional irregularity which has occurred year after year in connection with the payment of their salaries—an irregu- 250 larity which has been reported on by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. Further than that there is the extreme peculiarity of the rather ingenious arrangement by which it is proposed to legalize the payments. It may be inconvenient to discuss the matter at this hour of the night, but after all it is the choice of the Government, as, if they had chosen to accept the Motion to report Progress, the subject could have been raised on a more convenient opportunity. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I feel bound to join in the protest made against this Vote, and I shall support the Motion for its reduction.
§ MR. SEXTONThe Government have endeavoured to amend the illegality of their position by a very curious method, but they have gained nothing whatever by it, as they will still be under the obligation to introduce a Bill in reference to the pensions of these gentlemen. Notwithstanding all the ingenuity employed by the Government on this occasion they will find themselves precisely in the same position. ["Divide" and Cries of "Order," and "Progress!"]
§ MR. SEXTONI move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ *MR. GOSCHENI hope the hon. Member will not persevere with his Motion. Hon. Members cannot complain that they have not been listened to. I must say that I think the hon. Member ought not at this time of the morning to be so susceptible to cries of "Divide."
§ MR. SEXTONThen suppress your disorderly followers below the Gangway.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 44; Noes 124; Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 30.)
§ Question again proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £9,852 14s. 2d. be granted for the said service."
251§ MR. SEXTONI hope hon Members will now be willing to allow us to proceed without interruption. The hon. Gentleman the Recorder for Ashton-under-Lyne is not now in his place, and his absence will tend somewhat to the order of the debate. I was about to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether he will give a reply to the pertinent question put to him by my hon. Friend? We have a right to ask what has been the course of these transactions. Lord Londonderry and Lord Ashbourne would appear to have been in collusion—to use no harsher term. We ought to know when was this matter arranged? Did the suggestion proceed from the Judicial Officer or from the Executive? Did Lord Londonderry point out to Lord Ashbourne that they were stealing from the public purse and paying money they had no right to pay, or was it Lord Ashbourne who generously consented to come to the rescue of the Executive? How was it initiated? Did the eminent judicial person go to the Castle to help the Executive out of the difficulty, or was he asked to do so by Lord Londonderry? Did Lord Ashbourne fill up a number of Commissions of Justices of the Peace, or did Lord Londonderry take away the Resident Magistrates Commissions before Lord Ashbourne conferred those of Justices of the Peace? Did Lord Ashbourne move in the matter as a Member of the Cabinet or a Member of the Privy Council? Again, every Justice of the Peace is bound by law to pay a fee of £6 on receiving his commission. We have been told that the Divisional Magistrates have had batches of commissions given out to them, some getting six and others 12. Have they paid the £6 fee on each; and, if not, how has the law been evaded? Let us be certain about these things, and let us see that there have been no breaches of the law. Let me also ask, were these affairs conducted vivâ voce as between Lord Londonderry and Lord Ashbourne, or in writing? We know there have been 252 important negotiations between Government agents and dynamitards, which, doubtless, have not been submitted to paper; but as between Lord Londonderry and Lord Ashbourne there must have been correspondence. Who was the first to write, and will the Government be willing to lay the correspondence on the Table, and thus communicate it to those who have to vote the needed money?
§ MR. MADDENBut with regard to the question which was put to me on the subject, I may say that my answer related solely to the change in the title from Divisional Magistrate to Divisional Commissioner. This change is quite distinct from the root of the question, and does not affect the position of the present officials with regard to the Public Accounts Committee. The questions put to me by the hon. Gentleman as to what has passed between other persons I am not in a position to answer.
§ *MR. GOSCHENrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 121; Noes 43.—(Div. List, No. 31.)
§ Question put accordingly, "That a sum, notexceeding£9,852 14s. 2d., be granted for the said Service."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 120.—(Div. List, No. 32.)
§ *MR. GOSCHENclaimed "That the Original Question be now put."
§ Original Question put accordingly.
§
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 120, Noes 44.—(Div. List, No. 33.)
Ordered, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,970 14s. 2d., be granted to Her Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Services, for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1888.
§ Resolutions to be reported, and Committee to sit again.
§ House adjourned at ten minutes before Four o'clock in the morning.