§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £29,558, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, of the Offices of the Chief Secretary in Dublin and London, and of Subordinate Departments.
§ *(4.50.) THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON, Leeds, N.)On a previous occasion the hon. and learned Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) asked me whether it would be possible to put these two Votes separately. The Estimates presented this year reduce the number of Votes by combining a certain number of them together. One of the combined Votes is for the salaries of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary. The Estimates were subsequently referred to the Public Accounts Committee, and the Government frankly and completely accepted their recommendations, and, as a consequence, the two Votes now combined will next year be presented separately. It is proposed this year that there shall be no transfer between the two Votes as regards this year's accounts, and, as I have found it is possible to propose the Votes as separate Votes on this occasion, I propose, with the leave of the Committee, to take that course.
§ (4.53.) MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)I think it was a strong order for the Treasury to attempt to take the course they sought to take in this matter without any authority or precedent whatsoever. When the Closure was passed, I prophesied that an attempt would be made to extend the operation of the Closure by putting more matter into a clause, but I never dreamed for a moment that the Constitutional Authorites at the Treasury would attempt to dovetail one Vote into another for mere Closure purposes. I stigmatise the attempt made by the Treasury to consolidate these Votes as a most unfortunate one for the Department; and I am very glad to find that, after attention has been publicly 1329 called to the subject, the Treasury have been obliged to recede from their position. But that does not relieve the Treasury from the imputation which they will be under—that they have endeavoured to subordinate for Closure purposes matters of Treasury detail and management. I would advise the Treasury, if they again desire to throw dust in the eyes of the House, to confine that dust to English and Scotch optics, and not to ours.
§ *MR. JACKSONIt is due to the Treasury, and particularly to the Departmental Treasury, to say that the proposals made were made on the authority of the Government. In framing the proposals no idea of combining Votes for Closure purposes ever entered into their calculation. The hon. and learned Gentleman says there is no authority or precedent for what has been done. I assure him there is both' authority and precedent, and what was done was recommended by a Committee.
*SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH (Lancashire, Clitheroe)I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in the last sentence which he uttered. What was recommended by the Committee on Estimate Procedure was that the scheme for throwing some of the Votes together should be submitted to the House, not that the Votes should be thrown together and the Estimates introduced in the altered form. I think the right hon. Gentleman has to-day taken a course which was obviously the proper course to follow.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover Square)The hon. and learned Member for North Longford has said that a reduction in the number of Votes was suggested by the Treasury for Closure purposes. The reduction in the number of Votes was suggested by the Select Committee.
§ (5.0.) MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)I am glad there is a division of the Votes. I do not say that in the present instance the combination would lead to any very great inconvenience, but in the future it might lead to very great inconvenience, indeed. We have now a Chief Secretary who is a very strong man, and we have a Lord Lieutenant who is remarkable only because his title begins with the last letter of the alphabet. But for this fact I 1330 do not know that there would be many people here or in Ireland who would remember who the present Lord Lieutenant is. But it may happen in the future that we may have a strong Lord Lieutenant and a mild-mannered gentleman like the Attorney General to represent him in this House, and under such circumstances it might be awkward to have to discuss the two Votes together, for we might find ourselves visiting on the head of the inoffensive Chief Secretary the censure we intended for the Lord Lieutenant.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Bum, not exceeding £3,164, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 51st day of March 1891, for the Salaries of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and other expenses.
§ (5.2.) MR. T. M. HEALYI understand there was an intimation at the close of last Session, and it was generally mooted that there was some intention to make a statement as to the continuance of the office of Lord Lieutenant. We heard that a number of Conservative gentlemen, hon. and gallant Members on the other side, Ulster Members of the Conservative Party, intended to make a tremendous onslaught upon this Vote this year.
THE CHAIRMANIt would be quite outside the scope of this Vote to discuss the salary of the Lord Lieutenant, which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, is charged upon the Consolidated Fund. This is a Vote for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant. Any question of general constitutional policy in Ireland should be raised on the Chief Secretary's Vote.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYYes, Sir; but I apprehend the expenses of the Household are the consequence of the office of Lord Lieutenant; and if we had no Lord Lieutenant, it naturally follows we should have no Household to provide for; abolish him, and his Household would be abolished. However, Sir, if you can point out the distinction by which we can discuss the propriety of abolishing the Household, and leave the Lord Lieutenant standing, I will endeavour to obey your direction. I will endeavour to narrow my observations within the 1331 sense you have indicated. I will only say, in regard to the expenses of the Household, that we did expect to hear from hon. Members opposite or from the Government some statement expressive of their views as to the continuance of the Lord Lieutenant's Household.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThat being so, I ask if the Government are now prepared to say whether His Excellency's House hold.
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that discussion must be confined to the expenses of the Household.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYOf course, Sir, if you rule that we must discuss it from an £ s. d. point of view merely, accepting the existence of the Household, I presume it would be impossible now for Her Majesty's Government to make such a statement, though it was mooted abroad that the Government had such an intention.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)No, Sir; I do not propose to make any statement.
§ (5.6.) MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)This Vote is an old friend. I am sorry the Financial Secretary is not here, for I was going to ask him a question upon the Estimates; that is, under what head of the Irish Votes an item is included which I thought to have found here, but do not—I mean the Vote for the Ulster King-at-Arms. But I suppose it will turn up ultimately.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not recollect just now where the item appears. I think in the latter class of Votes.
MR. MAC NEILLWell, we have the Votes now divided, and have to deal with the Household first, and we find that for servants and keeping up of the Household we are to vote.£4,500. I take, first, the Spiritual Department—the Chaplains—and for this alone £789 is expended. That is a very small sum, but it touches a matter of principle; and I should ask to be forgiven perhaps if on a Vote in Supply, I make a personal allusion. As a member of the Irish Church, I do most strongly object to this State support of a chaplain in Dublin Castle. It is the very last relic of an Established Church in Ireland, the last relic of a shameful system which con- 1332 nected the Church with Dublin Castle; and as an earnest member of the Church, I should like to see this last relic of a State Church abolished. If this £789 were taken to-day and thrown into the Thames it would not be less wisely applied. The Chaplain at Dublin Castle is a gentleman whom I know very well, and for whom I have a very great esteem. He has another cure in Dublin. In former times the Dean of the Chapel Royal held the post as a stepping stone to a Bishopric. He had rooms in Dublin Castle; he was a Member of the Viceregal Court; he dined every day with the Lord Lieutenant; he was part of the Household. Under the new system, that is, since the Irish Church Disestablishment, this office, formerly something more than a sinecure, has now become considerably less than a sinecure, and the salary is taken by a gentleman who is rector of St. Andrew's, Dublin. He has £150 a year added to his chaplain's salary. This is an example in a small thing of what is done in greater things. This is an addition in lieu of rooms in the Castle simply because, as the Attorney General for Ireland very well knows, Dr. Nicholson has attached to his rectorate a very fine residence, and, therefore, does not require what were formerly the chaplain's rooms in the Castle, and so the Government give him £150 a year more because he has a residence of his own. Is this not a small example of the heartless, wanton waste and jobbery that run through Irish administration? Money is a thing of relative value, and what £5 is to one man 1d. is to another. We know how the gross amount of taxation weighs heavily upon the poor, and is it not a heartless, wasteful thing to take the public money thus and give it to a gentleman simply because he does not take, because he does not need them, the rooms formerly belonging to the office he holds in Dublin Castle? This chapel in Dublin Castle is not used by the Dublin Court, nor is it a place of worship of popular resort. We have in Dublin an exquisite Cathedral with full choral services—St.Patrick's—and this the Lord Lieutenant attends in the afternoon. In the morning he goes to the chapel at the Hibernian Military School, and within short distances he has churches on all sides. In former days the chapel in the 1333 Castle was frequented by hangers-on to the Court, that dubious class of persons ever on the look-out for an appointment or the means to advance their social position, and these used to visit the chapel for worship or to stare at the Lord Lieutenant; but he does not go there now. This beautiful chapel, for so it is, has been converted into a military chapel, and the Protestant troops in Dublin attend there. The arrangements for conducting State worship have been practically abolished, yet still we have these expenses on the Estimates. Here are expenses for reading clerk, choristers, and boy choristers, and choral services which are absolutely unnecessary. For those Protestants who admire a choral service there are such services at Christ Church and at St. Patrick's Cathedral. This is kept up, I say, as the relic of an old system, and as, I should say, a pernicious system, having regard to the true interest of the Church of which I am a member. With regard to the present holder of the office of chaplain, I say he would have been appointed to a Bishopric long ago under the free election of the Irish Church, but such an appointment is retarded by his connection with Dublin Castle. Only one good sermon, so far as I know, was ever preached in this Chapel Royal, and that was on the occasion when Dean Swift, one of the first chaplains, preached his eloquent sermon on the broomstick. And now, leaving this spiritual provision, I come upon large sums for service and attendance, and a waste of public money. Here are 17 attach°s, I may call them, though they have different positions. I recollect a celebrated actor once saying the most difficult thing to do on the stage was to do nothing, but here are 17 supers who perform that difficult task on the Vice-regal stage. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle in a brilliant speech once said he only knew within his experience five literary men who subsisted upon their pen, but I think he may now add a sixth in the person of the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. This gentleman draws the handsome income of £829 0s. 8il., and what does he do for it? Since Lord Zetland has been in office, I do not remember a single public letter from him. There have been one or two answers to addresses, and I be- 1334 lieve on one occasion Lord Zetland made a speech of three or four minutes' duration, and these may have been prepared by the private secretary; but sure I am that since Lord Zetland was appointed, Mr. John Mulholland, his private secretary, must have received £100 for each letter of a public character he has-written. Now, we come to four aides-de-camp at £200 each. Their duties, I believe, consist of standing about in more or less picturesque attitudes on the few occasions when receptions are held at Dublin Castle. They help to give distinction to this vulgar, gingerbread Court. Then follow various other officers. The State Steward—I am sure I do not know what he does. I had an acquaintance with an ex-steward from Dublin Castle under a very different r°gime, and he told me that his duty was to introduce ladies to gentlemen at dances. For this important and delicate duty he is paid £505 19s. 4d. This is very amusing as a farce, but it is very real indeed when we remember that these are items in the heavy taxation of our poorer countrymen. The Comptroller—what does he do? He has a kind of fixed tenure of his office which I believe he has held for 20 years. He pays, I think, the Viceregal Household, and for this he is well paid himself at £413 13s. 4d. Following the catalogue we come upon the Gentleman Usher; what his function is I do not know, except to receive the cards of those who come to leave them. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give us some information, although the right hon. Gentleman himself does not appear at these public receptions, upon which I congratulate him. Next comes a Chamberlain at £200, and then the Master of the Horse. There are no horses, but for the mastery of the pretended horses this official draws £200 a year. Then come* a group of three Gentlemen in Waiting, gentlemen waiting for something to turn up, for some crumbs from the Viceregal table of patronage, some Resident Magistracy, or vacant office; meanwhile, they are solaced with salaries amounting to. £443. There are many such gentlemen waiting for what may happen; possibly the right hon. Gentleman himself may be added to the number after the next General Election. Why, if we pursue our investigation, we shall find that this 1335 establishment is merely an asylum, a means of providing pensions for idle, lounging members of the aristocracy. Among others, we find a son of our old friend Mr. Olphert, of Falcarragh, getting £184 12s. 8d. Next passes in review the Surgeon of the Household with £100, an amount which is either too little or too much. If he does anything at all in the way of keeping the Household in health £100 is too little; if he does nothing, which I strongly suspect is the case, then it is too much. Then there are other items which go to make up the gross sum of this waste of public money. A State porter, an old Army pensioner, £61 13s. 3d.; a sergeant of the Riding House £30—the Riding House does not exist. Remember all this expenditure, and more of the same kind, comes from our constituents, and we who know the intense poverty of our people are justified in contesting this waste of money penny by penny. If we can we will prevent this robbery. Here I come to the evidence of a job to which I have before called attention. I have been four years in Parliament, and here is my only legislative achievement. I have succeeded in staying the expenditure of 5s. a day upon a telegraphist at the Viceregal Lodge for doing nothing. The distance between the Viceregal Lodge and Dublin Castle is a mile and a half, and no telegraphic messages are sent from the one to the other. I believe such messages are sent from the Chief Secretary's Lodge during the time the Chief Secretary is there, which may be six or seven weeks during the year. This salary of 5s. a day for every day in the year is now, I see, only to be paid during the lifetime of the present holder of the office; but I say, if the Lord Lieutenant chooses to make provision for the man out of his own extravagant salary, by all means let him do so, but it should not be given at the public expense. I hope we shall not be met with the trite and somewhat absurd statement that if we maintain a Viceregal Court at all, we must pay to keep it up. I am curious to know what defence the right hon. Gentleman can make. It is of no use to tell ns these things come down to us an evil legacy from a bad old time. If it be not for public benefit that these men should receive public 1336 money for nothing, then we, as Trustees for the public, should do our duty by knocking off these sums; we have no right to say these men shall be gainers at the expense of the country. Unhappily, the Chief Secretary knows very little about Ireland. I sometimes feel irritated at his observations, until I remember that he is simply giving official information. If he examined things for himself, I cannot but think he would come to very different conclusions; but as it is, he simply adopts the statements of interested persons. Why, again, I ask, the payment of £789 for the Chaplains' Department? It is wholly unnecessary. The Lord Lieutenant may be of a very different religion to that of the late Disestablished Church; he may be a Hindoo; he may be anything, or nothing; only he may not be a Catholic. It is one of the worst instances in this list of jobs. Under the system of former times the outgoing Lord Lieutenant was, of course, not able to retain these various gentlemen, or the retinue of Dublin Castle, and it was left to his successor to make appointments; but now, under the new r°gime, most of these 17 officials are fixtures, and have retained their appointments through the reigns of several Lords Lieutenant. It is difficult to remove them, but, none the less, it is time these abuses, these mischievous attempts by a sham aristocracy to keep up a shoddy Court, were swept away.
§ (5.27.) MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)There is one part of the Vote to which my hon. Friend has not given much notice, the salary of the Master of the Horse, who, as a foot-note informs us, also receives £276 a year as the Deputy Ranger of the Curragh of Kildare. I should like to know from the Chief Secretary what are the duties of the Deputy Ranger of the Curragh of Kildare, valued at £276 a year. That which we have had occasion to find fault with in the English Estimates is here repeated—the salaries of officials are divided under different heads, and do not appear in one lump sum. Also, I should like to know what are the duties for which three Gentlemen-in-Waiting receive £443 a year. I appeal with all earnestness to the Government, is it not possible to exercise some authority in these matters? Must all this expenditure go on helping to swell the amount 1337 of taxation, while throughout Ireland we see such evidences of dire distress among the people? It would be much better if the money were spent on some deserving object in Dublin, or other parts of Ireland, instead of in supporting Gentle-men-in-Waiting. What good on earth are the Gentlemen-in-Waiting for? It would take more than three gentlemen, whether in waiting or not, to make Dublin Castle a respectable resort. As to the telegraphist at the Viceregal Lodge, I do not know what his duties are, but the chances are that he earns his £91 a year a great deal better than the Gentleman Usher earns his £200, or the Chamberlain his £200. I think that matter might be arranged by cutting down the salaries of these gentlemen, and thus providing for the telegraphist. Now, the State Steward receives £506 and the Comptroller £414 a year. What do these gentlemen do? Are they entitled to public money on any ground whatever? I do not know what the Chamberlain does; but if you are to have a Chamberlain, surely £200 is a very cheap price. Then there is the Sergeant of the Riding House. Does the Chief Secretary go riding in order to give this official employment in teaching him to ride, or does his private secretary (the Member for Dover) give the Riding Sergeant work to do? Sir, I think that all these offices are useless and ought to be abolished. The Chief Secretary should give us some explanation as to why we are asked to pay £3,875 a year for these useless offices. It is simply a waste of money, and I am sure hon. Members opposite, in their hearts, condemn it. And then I come to the Chaplain's Vote. It is a monstrous thing, in my opinion, that in a country like Ireland, where the great bulk of the people profess the Catholic religion, they should be called upon to maintain an office which no Catholic could ever find it possible to fill. I think the supporters of the Government in Dublin Castle might very well be called upon to provide their own chaplain, for we do not find that people of other religions are ever called upon to pay for a Catholic chaplain. If there is one place that requires purification by prayer or by any other means more than another, I am sure it is Dublin Castle. Still, I do not see why the Roman Catholics of Ireland should be 1338 called upon to pay a single sixpence for the purpose of maintaining a chaplain to administer to the religious wants of the Lord Lieutenant. The fact that a Roman Catholic can never hold the office of Lord Lieutenant, and that a priest can never receive this salary, makes the charge grossly unfair, and constitutes a standing and continuous insult to the people of Ireland.
§ (5.40.) MR. A. J. BALFOURI am afraid that I cannot give the House or the Committee any minute information on the various details referred to by hon. Members, or as to the duties of the officials of Dublin Castle. But if you are to have a Lord Lieutenant at a salary which is admittedly inadequate to cover the cost of the functions which have to be performed I do not think it right that Parliament should complain that part of the cost is borne by the community. I have no doubt that if the Lord Lieutenant could carry out the duties of the office at the expense of £20,000, allowed out of the Consolidated Fund, he would be a great gainer; but knowing what I do of the experience of previous holders of this great office, I can tell the House that they spent a great deal more than this £3,000 charged in the Vote for these posts in excess of the £20,000 which is voted for the office. When you choose to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant, all the other offices will, of course, disappear with it; but while you retain the Lord Lieutenant, you ought to retain these other officials. With regard to the salary of the Dean of the Chapel Royal, the hon. Member who has just sat down appears to be of the opinion that it is an insult to the Roman Catholics of Ireland that those in authority in Ireland should be Protestants.
§ MR. W. REDMONDI must strongly object to the right hon. Gentleman putting that construction on my words. What I said was, that it was an insult to the Catholics that they should be called upon to pay the salary of an office which, under the present law, is impossible for a Catholic ever to fill.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI take it the hon. Member's objection is that, in a Roman Catholic country, £700 a year should be paid to a Protestant chaplain.
§ MR. W. REDMONDNo; my point is, that in a country which is largely Roman Catholic, it is wrong to make the 1339 people support an office which cannot be occupied by one of their own religion.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI suppose the hon. Member does not object to the present holder of the office?
§ MR. W. REDMONDCertainly not.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI understand. I will not now go into the question whether or not the office of Lord Lieutenant should be abolished, but, in regard to the post of chaplain, I may remind the Committee that whatever view they take of the propriety of retaining the office, it is held for life, and therefore the money must be paid under any circumstances, for the honour of Parliament is pledged to the holder so long as he chooses to retain the appointment.
§ (5.43.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)I understand the Chief Secretary to justify these charges on the ground that the salary of the Lord Lieutenant is insufficient to maintain the dignity of the office. That is a view which I cannot accept. The salary is, I believe, £20,000 a year, and I ask, is it not an outrage on common sense to tell us that the Lord Lieutenant, who keeps up this petty, contemptible, wretched travesty of a Court in a city which, under the present r°gime, has been reduced to the condition of a fourth-rate provincial town, cannot do it at a salary which is double that paid to the President of the United States, who rules over 63,000,000 of people. Nothing more grotesque could be imagined. When Abraham Lincoln ruled America he had a salary of 825,000, or £5,000, and it is ridiculous to say that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland cannot keep up his office on £20,000 without these Supplementary Votes. If that is the only argument the Chief Secretary can bring forward, it is a very poor defence. Now, let us look at the details of this Vote. We find that many of the officers are paid large salaries for doing absolutely nothing. I do protest against the assumption of the Chief Secretary that we are bound to vote blindfold large salaries out of the pockets of the taxpayers for sinecure offices. He came down to this discussion forewarned that he would be called on to defend the Vote on its merits. Yet, what was his answer? It was, "I am not able to give information as to the duties of these officials." That means that he will not take the trouble 1340 to inform himself on these points, although he knows that, as the responsible Minister of the Crown, it is his duty to defend the Votes. That is the way in which we are met. The right hon. Gentleman rose from his seat slowly and with infinite grace and announced that his duties would not allow him to examine into the details of this matter. I do not know what his duties are; but some people say that they consist of reading French novels, on which he is one of the greatest authorities. The truth is, however, that the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are no details to be inquired into, and that these officials have no duties to perform. All they have to do is to dress themselves in lace and silk stockings and parade about on absurd occasions when ladies are admitted to the Castle. Now, take the case of the State Steward. He receives £506 a year. I am told that his business is to introduce ladies and gentlemen when entertainments are given at Dublin Castle, and to decide who shall go into dinner first. Is it not an outrageous thing that this House should be called on to pay £506 of the taxpayers' money to a gentleman whose onerous duty it is to decide who shall have precedence in going in to dinner. I say that people do not care three farthings who goes in first or last, and the ladies and gentlemen who honour Dublin Castle by their presence ought to be left to settle the matter of precedence amongst themselves. Can the Chief Secretary name any other duty which the State Steward is called upon to perform? If he cannot, then I call on him to strike that Vote out of the Estimates. The next Vote is for four aides-de-camp to the Lord Lieutenant. These are four young gentlemen whose only duty is to dance with young ladies at Dublin Castle balls. Are we to pay military gentlemen for doing that which they should be glad enough to do for nothing? I never heard of a young officer requiring £200 a year as an inducement to dance with young ladies. The next Vote to which I have to call attention is that of £829 for the salary of the private secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. This question has been brought before the House over and over again, and in the whole of the Estimates no more disgraceful or scandalous piece of jobbery is to 1341 be found. In many of the permanent Departments of the Civil Service maybe found highly-trained and valuable officials, who for years have laboured skilfully in the service of their country, and would be only too glad to get a salary like this, yet here we have an utterly untrained man chosen for this appointment. It is notorious that Mr. Mulhall has had no training of any kind whatsoever, and any ordinary ornamental young man would deem himself extremely lucky to get a salary of £200 a year and his board for performing the duties of this office. It is, I repeat, a gross and monstrous job. Now, what are the duties of this private secretary? We are told that his business is to write invitations to balls, dinners, and suppers at Dublin Castle. Surely that does not justify the payment of a salary of £829 a year. If the Lord Lieutenant, with his salary of £20,000 a year and all these hangers-on, cannot write his own letters, be had better pay his private secretary out of his own pocket, for the taxpayers of England certainly ought not to be called on to pay £829 a year to a young gentleman whose only duty, besides dining with the Lord Lieutenant, is to fill in printed cards of invitation, address the envelopes, and paste on the stamps. I would therefore suggest that the Chief Secretary should hand over his coal allowance of £400 a year to his chief private secretary. I am sure Mr. John Mulhall will have every reason to be gratified. Then there are two other items on which we are entitled to an explanation. First, "Telegraphist, 5s. a day," a charge which expires with his life. I always find that where salaries are for life, the recipient goes on living for ever. Why is this telegraphist at the Viceregal Lodge? I could understand the need of a telegraphist for the monstrous use which is made of the wires in the work of spying all over the country. But why should there be a special telegraphist dancing attendance on the Lord Lieutenant? I cannot see any object at all, unless it be, as we know the Viceroy is a horsey man, that he has to send telegrams in respect of horse races. But Lord Zetland should pay for his own racing telegrams, and I protest against it. The Castle of Dublin is provided with a staff of telegraphists; all the business is done by that staff. If 1342 the Lord Lieutenant, his weary round of labours over, retires to the rural delights of Phoenix Park, and he wants to arrange his betting, let him pay for the telegraphists out of his own private resources. There is one other item I desire explained. I refer to the chaplain at Dublin Castle. It is an absurd and monstrous provision. It is a remnant of the old intolerance; and we had a recent example of the monstrous absurdity to which this gives rise. Although the Lord Lieutenant must not be a Roman Catholic, yet he may be a Presbyterian; and we bad the grotesque spectacle of a Presbyterian Lord Lieutenant, who was unable to receive the ministration of the Church of Ireland clergyman who was chaplain. I want the Chief Secretary to get up and tell us in a businesslike way what the private secretary does and why he is paid a large salary; why these four aides-de-camp each receive £200 a year; what the Comptroller does; and, if the Lord Lieutenant has a Chamberlain, Master of the Horse, and Gentlemen-in-Waiting, what does he want with State Stewards? These three gentlemen are not required for deciding questions of precedence in going into dinner, and so on. I hope the Chief Secretary will get up and explain what these officers do. If he does not, I think we are entitled, in the interests of the taxpayers of this country, to divide the Committee against every single Vote.
§ (6.5.) MR. T. M. HEALYIt is very painful to me to hear all these attacks upon the Lord Lieutenant. I think I shall save the Chief Secretary trouble if I give a general defence for the existence of the Lord Lieutenant's Household. First of all, I will take the salary of the private secretary. Now, my hon. Friend says that Mr. John Mulhall is getting a larger salary, when a smaller one would do. But, no doubt, the private secretary to the present Lord Lieutenant and to the late Lord Lieutenant, the Marquess of Londonderry, has something to do. We know that the private secretary to these noblemen must have some allowance made for his feelings. I observe the hon. Member for Dover opposite. He is private secretary to the Chief Secretary—an intellectual man—he gets nothing. I have examined the Votes, and there is no charge whatever for the extraordinary 1343 services of the hon. Member for Dover. He takes a pleasure in the work, and perhaps the reason of it is that he often gets his name published in the newspaper. I have often wondered to my self whether the hon. Member for Dover is private secretary to the Chief Secretary or the Chief Secretary is private secretary to the Member for Dovet. Then, again, Mr. John Mulhall, it must be remembered, is a barrister, and he has to advise Lord Zetland of the legal competence of Irish Resident Magistrates. It will be seen at once that Mr. Malhall has a number of very important duties. Knowing how difficult it is to get Irish barristers into the service of the State, unless a sufficiently tempting and adequate salary is offered, I must say it is something to get a barrister for £829 Os. 8d.a year. I admire the 8d., and it shows that Mr. Mulhall is ready to maintain the reputation of the Irish Bar down to 8d. Then the aides-de-camp. On what ground are these gentlemen attacked? It is said that they do nothing but dance attendance on the Viceregal Household. It is a very dull place for these English gentlemen to spend their time in, and why on earth should they not have some salary. The Chief Secretary, who has £400 a year for coals, never goes to Ireland. Is it to be tolerated that these four aides-de-camp should not get each £200 a year for living in that country? I say they are dirt cheap to the State. Then we have the State Stewards. I do not know what they do. I have read about stewards in the Bible; but what the State Stewards do is a question on which, no doubt, the Chief Secretary will illuminate us. For my part, I could not for a moment attempt to decide why they should not get £413 19s. 4d. There is the Comptroller. I must say nobody wants more controlling than the Lord Lieutenant. It is a most admirable office; and if the Lord Lieutenant had not a Comptroller, there is no knowing what would happen to the British Constitution. Master of the Horse. That I can quite understand, because the Lord Lieutenant has no horses to be master of. I say to the Radicals of the country, that when they have got the Lord Lieutenant and his Household, they must be prepared to pay for them. Do not attack these miserable details. Let us address 1344 ourselves to these questions in a large and becoming sprit. It is unworthy of this House that these niggling comments should be made upon such an office as the Master of the Horse. I must say, Mr. Courtney, that so long, I hope, we will register no opposition to the Master of the Horse. But, Sir, something must be said of Sergeants of the Riding House. All these are absolutely, indispensably requisite to his position. From my knowledge of the Lord Lieutenant, and the large acquaintance I possess among these persons, it would be wholly impossible, to maintain the dignity of the office if these adjuncts were not maintained. Then I come to the Chaplain of Dublin Castle, and I would ask, does any Institution stand more in need of such a functionary? He reads prayers daily at an expense of £184 12s. 8d. per annum, and yet we are asked to vote against his salary. Beyond this there is the cost of the telegraphist, who receives 5s. per day. Well, Sir, I say, I let us cut that off. I am prepared to cut down the expenditure of the Lord Lieutenant by 5s. per day, but when I am asked to abolish the other officers necessary to the dignity of that official, every feeling that is loyal and legitimate in my nature revolts against the proposal. This 5s. a day may seem a small matter; but I say it is not a small matter; and if any Radical in this House ventures to move its reduction, I shall vote with him against that payment.
§ (6 18.) MR. A. J. BALFOURHon. Members opposite have spent a considerable portion of the evening in a discussion which may be, very agreeable and entertaining to them, but which can hardly be said to relate to matters of importance as affecting Ireland. In regard to what has been said as to the Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, Lean assure the House that the Lord Lieutenant has an enormous and very confidential correspondence, and it would be impossible to obtain a competent gentleman to deal with correspondence of that character by merely going into the market and engaging the first person who undertakes to give his services. When a comparison is drawn between the salary given to the Lord Lieutenant's secretary and that of a permanent Civil servant, it should be remembered that the appointment of the 1345 Lord Lieutenant's secretary is only temporary, and that, unlike the permanent Civil servant, he knows that his tenure of office will end with the tenure of the Lord Lieutenant himself, and that he has no claim to pension. Under these circumstances, I think the arguments used on this subject fall entirely to the ground. I hope the Committee will now come to a decision on this Vote, and that we may be allowed to proceed to matters of rather more importance.
§ (6.20.) MR. W. REDMONDThe right hon. Gentleman has1 altogether failed to answer the direct inquiry put to him as to what are the duties of these officers of the Lord Lieutenant's Household. The right hon. Gentleman in his first speech told us he was not in a position to inform us as to the duties of the members of the Lord Lieutenant's Household.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI said I was not in a position to explain the minute details.
§ MR. W. REDMONDWe do not ask the right hon. Gentleman for minute details. All we have asked is that the right hon. Gentleman should state broadly what these officers do, and the right hon. Gentleman has not pointed out a single duty performed by either of these persons. He has told us, however, that we should commence by attacking the office of the Lord Lieutenant himself; but the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that if he were to attempt to discuss the Lord Lieutenant's office, you, Sir, would rule us to be out of order; consequently, we are compelled to draw attention simply to the Household of the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. Gentleman is evidently in absolute ignorance of the duties performed by those functionaries; he has made some attempt to give an account of the duties of the secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, but he has not told us what the steward and the other officers do for the salaries which are here set down. It is an exceedingly cool proposition to expect this Committee to pass this Vote without the slightest inkling as to what these persons do for the money which is paid. Take the case of the Master of the Horse. He receives a salary of £200 a year; but, in addition to this, he has a further salary of £276 a year as the Deputy Ranger of the Curragh of Kildare. Even if this were not 1346 a question of £276 added to £200 a year, natural curiosity would prompt us to inquire who and what is the Deputy Ranger of the Curragh of Kildare, and I think we are entitled to that information. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know himself, he might inquire through his private secretaries. The right hon. Gentleman's chief private secretary has spent some time in Dublin Castle, and surely ought to be in a position to tell us what is done by the three Gentlemen in Waiting in order to earn the money they receive. He ought to be able to tell us what are the duties of the State Steward and the Controller, and also of the Gentleman Usher, who is in receipt of" £200 a year. But the right hon. Gentleman gets up, and, with an obvious affectation of seriousness, tells us we are not entitled to occupy the time of the Committee now, because the Vote does not relate to any serious important matter, such as will arise, no doubt, on the question of his own salary. This may be true; but, at the same time, the Vote is one of close upon £3,800 a year, and, therefore, it is not a trivial matter. We find that not only do some of these gentlemen receive salaries set down in this Vote; but, by a note at the bottom of the page, we find that they are also receiving salaries for fulfilling other offices in different parts of Ireland. How can the right hon. Gentleman expect the Committee to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the fitness of the salary given to the Master of the Horse when we find that he is receiving another salary as Deputy Ranger of the Curragh of Kildare?
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! I must point out to the hon. Member that the question at issue with regard to the Master of the Horse has reference only to his salary of £200 a year. The other question is not raised by this Vote.
§ MR. W. REDMONDI quite see the, force of your interposition, Mr. Courtney, but I apprehend that there must be some connection between the two payments. However, when the proper time arrives, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what are the duties of the Deputy Ranger of the Curragh of Kildare. At present I only desire to know the duties of the officers of the Lord Lieutenant's household. We are bound to go to a Division in order to express our view as to the maintenance of 1347 these apparently useless offices. We are bound to do this in the interests of the unfortunate taxpayers, not only of Ireland but of England and Scotland, who have to provide the means of maintaining these useless appointments.
§ (6.25.) MR. DILLONI rise to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £3,000, in order that the opinion of the Committee may be taken upon this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has stated that we are wasting time in a discussion of an insignificant Vote. If time is being wasted it is simply because our criticism of the Vote has been met in a manner which is, at any rate, very unusual in this House. Here are a number of items which have been challenged in Committee, year after year, and I ask any Conservative or Liberal Independent Member to compare the way we are treated in regard to these Votes with the way the Secretary to the Treasury meets points that are raised in the Votes which are under his charge. I have never known the Secretary to the Treasury, political opponent of ours as he is, fail to go into the most minute detail on any question raised on a Vote; but here, when criticisms are offered, the right hon. Gentleman deliberately refuses to give us any information on any detail in the Vote, and rides off on the plea, "I have not got sufficient time to acquaint myself with the details of the matter." Therefore, if there is waste of time in Committee, the blame must rest entirely on the shoulders of the gentleman who expects us to take Votes in this way. The only case in which the right hon. Gentleman attempted to give anything in the shape of an answer was in regard to the Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He said this gentleman had an immense mass of confidential correspondence to deal with, and that, therefore, we got full value for his salary. But I would point out that the whole of the work of the Government of Ireland is done through the Irish Office and the Castle. Then what in be the nature of this confidential correspondence? A lot of it is correspondence about betting, or has to do with the private affairs of Lord Zetland, and it is not for this House to pay a secretary to attend to it. If Lord Zetland's private correspondence is large, and his betting transactions are considerable, he should pay out of his own 1348 pocket the salary of the private secretary who attends to such matters. But, as I say, whatever time is occupied with these Votes, the Chief Secretary, whose duty it is to know all about these things, comes down here and calls on the House to vote a sum of £3,164, without giving us the slightest information as to the duties of the officials.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries, Lord Lieutenant's Household, be reduced by the sum of £3,000."—(Mr. Dillon.)
§ (6.35.) DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)Before we proceed to divide on the question I would point out to the Chief Secretary that most of these aides-de-camp are military men drawing full pay all the time they are absent from their regiments. Many of these gentlemen belong to cavalry regiments, and have fair private means of their own, and they look forward to positions of this kind without the slightest regard to this beggarly £200 a-year. They enjoy the kudos of being appointed to this honorary position. They act as dancing men, in every sense of the word, attending all the Viceregal entertainments. Their salaries, it seems to me, if the Chief Secretary would look upon the matter in a business-like and conciliatory spirit, might easily be dispensed with. Why is not this economy effected? Merely because these salaries were granted years ago, and the right hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Conservative Government, desires to preserve the salaries of others, as he desires to preserve his own. I would point out that the surgeon to the Household receives only £100 a year, though he has to look after a great many people. He has to maintain a high position, yet he only gets £100 a year, while these dancing military men get £200 a year each. Then, the Master of Horse—than whom there is no more courteous gentleman in connection with Dublin Castle, and who is well known to many hon. Members—has nothing to do but, on certain occasions, choose the horses for the Viceregal equipages. That is not a very onerous duty. The gallant Colonel is a permanent official. Like the Vicar of Bray, no matter what I Government comes or goes he still remains Master of the Horse, and if the 1349 question is put to him whether he desires to see this controversy year after year on this useless Vote, I am sure he will say he does not want the money, and will be very happy to fulfil his functions without payment. There is an item of £200 for a Chamberlain, and it seems to me absurd that you should pay that amount, when the surgeon only gets £100. Why, the telegraphist at the Castle only receives £9 a year less than the surgeon, a thing which is absurd on the face of it. I am sure that the Chief Secretary will see that some explanation is due to us in regard to these matters, and that he will deal with such Votes in a dignified, steady, and righteous manner.
§ *(6.41.) MR. MORTON (Peterborough)I desire to support this Amendment as a Representative of an English constituency. I think this charge is simply plundering the English and Scottish taxpayers. There may be some use for the private secretary and telegraphist, but the amount which it is proposed to leave will be ample for them. It seems to me extraordinary that we should pay for the objects set forth in this Vote four times as much for Ireland as we pay for Scotland.
THE CHAIRMANThis Vote has been divided into two parts, and we are now dealing with the first portion.
§ *MR. MORTONWe must bear in mind that there is no occasion at all for State in Ireland. The people do not want it; and it must be a sham and a farce. If the Queen or the members of the Royal Family were in the habit of residing in Ireland, I could understand that there was some excuse for the Vote, though, in another way, it would be bad even then; but, at present, so far as we have any evidence, there is no occasion for this money being spent in any shape or form whatever. I hold, therefore, that for us to vote this money is to deliberately waste it. I hope the Committee will reduce the Vote.
§ (6.45.) MR. BLANE (Armagh, S.)I fail to see why this House should vote money for a surgeon to the Lord Lieutenant. If with £20,000 a year the Lord Lieutenant cannot pay his own surgeon's bill—as we Members of this House have to do—there is a law which the Torty Party are constantly quoting, namely, 1st and 2nd Vic, Chap. 26, by aid of which the noble Lord can obtain 1350 relief. He can go to the South Dublin Union Dispensary and get attended to; but why he should come here for assistance of this kind I cannot make out. I find there are two Gentlemen in Waiting charged for, one at a salary of £184, and the other at a salary of £58. The reason one of these has got his post is because he is the son of Mr. Olphert, of Donegal. When I went down to Donegal this very Gentleman in Waiting had an interview with the Lord Lieutenant, and got me four months imprisonment, my sentence being doubled on appeal.
§ (6.47.) Mr. AIRD rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Debate resumed.
§ MR. BLANEThe Chief Secretary does not tell us the use of these men, or give us an intelligible explanation of the Vote, and, therefore, I say that we are justified in resisting it. It seems to me that the Lord Lieutenant should be able to meet all these charges out of his £20,000 a year, and that, in respect of them, no call should be made on the general taxpayers, most of whom are poor men, who have to pay to the Treasury on every smoke of the pipe they take, and every cup of tea, coffee, or cocoa they drink.
§ (6.48.) MR. DILLONI feel compelled to say, Sir, that the proceedings on the opposite side of the House are not such as are calculated to facilitate discussion. I never, in the whole course of my experience in Committee in this House, witnessed such a method of attempting to carry the Estimates as that adopted by the Chief Secretary today. We are accused of wasting time, but I will undertake to say that no English Vote was ever attempted to be carried through Committee in the way these are attempted to be carried through. The Chief Secretary has not endeavoured to offer the slightest justification for the Vote, and then, whilst we are trying to extract some explanation from him, one of his supporters gets up and moves that the question be now put. Surely some intelligent Member of the Party opposite will shortly rise and move that the 1351 whole of the Irish Estimates be carried forthwith. Let the hon. Member opposite give some intelligent indication that he understands the matters we are discussing before he tries to stop the Debate.
§ (6.50.) MR. A. J. BALFOURI would point out that on the Irish Estimates, as Irishmen themselves have often said, there arise great controversies on matters connected with the Government of Ireland. I am most anxious that the Committee should discuss those great controversial questions which come up upon the Irish Estimates, but we have now had two and a half hours of a discussion upon questions which cannot be regarded as of first, or even secondary, importance. The hon. Member for Mayo has accused the Government of declining to give information. I have not declined to give information. I have discussed many details with regard to the Vote, and if I have not gone into detail upon the duties of the various officials, the Committee will see that to attempt to discuss such questions in detail must be unsatisfactory in a high degree. If we require a Lord Lieutenant, and one who has to pay more than his salary—for that is what it really comes to—I maintain that it is not important to discuss what precise distinction there may be between the duties of a Chamberlain and those of an Equerry. There is no Court in which there are not similar functionaries; the salaries are not excessive, and far less than those which used to be paid. These have been discussed over and over again in this House, and I would again respectfully urge the Committee not to peddle with these twopenny-half-penny questions, but to decide at once the question of whether there should be a Lord Lieutenant or not.
§ (6.54.) MR. J. O'CONNORI would remind the right hon. Gentleman that they were not twopenny-half-penny which were raised in Committee on Monday and Tuesday night. The right hon. Gentleman has given us another proof of his great cleverness in evading the real question, and turning aside the whole course of the Debate. We maintain that the offices for which these charges are made are not real offices. There is no real office of Master of the Horse, as there are no horses to master; there is no 1352 office of Equerry, as there are no horse" to ride. If we object to this Vote it is- because these offices are unreal, and because we want to put an end to shams. We move a reduction of the Vote, and at once an hon. Member on the opposite- side rises and moves that the question be now put. I was at that hon. Member's election. I have never heard him make a speech—
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to the Question before the Committee.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORThe question, "That the Question be now put," was.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORThen I will only-say I object to this item for a Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. If the Lord Lieutenant were such an one as-we had prior to 1886—a Member of the Cabinet and a distinguished statesman—one could understand the necessity for a Private Secretary, but we cannot in the case of a man whose only claim to distinction is that his name begins with a Z. The secretaries to the Chief Secretary deserve to to be on the Vote, if they are not, for we get information from them. They enlighten the House. But that cannot be said of the officials under this Vote, whose functions the Chief Secretary declines to explain. We in Ireland are not opposed to institutions-like the establishment of the Lord Lieutenant. I should have no objection myself, under more propitious auspices, to be conducted to the State ballroom by an aide-de-camp. We do not object to-the pomp of State, but we want the offices to be real. They are not real, and, for that reason, I feel it my duty to-support the Amendment.
§ (7.0.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 202,—(Div. List, No. 183.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ (7.15.) DR. TANNERWe now pass to sub-head (b), and I want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one item under the sub-head. It is a very small matter, but I trust the Chief Secretary will vouchsafe us some reply. I see that £100 is set down for incidental expenses. The same sum was taken last year-How comes it to pass that in these wonderfully well paid offices a sum is 1353 provided every year for ineidental expenses? What is the £100 for?
§ (7.16.) MR. A. J BALFOURI understand that the incidental expenses are principally connected with travelling by Members of the Lord Lieutenant's household upon matters of public importance, and also with the supply of newspapers, and the like. The sum is less than it was some years ago; it has remained at the present figure for the last two years.
§ DR. TANNER£100 for newspapers is a large sum. To whom are the newspapers supplied? Is it to the Lord Lieutenant or to individual members of the staff? We know that the Chief Secretary, a gentleman of great literary culture, objects to newspapers; he never reads them. Let us receive some enlightenment on this matter; small as it is. It certainly would save a great deal of time if the particulars were given in the Estimates themselves. To whom tare the newspapers supplied?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURTo the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Lieutenant's household.
§ MR. E. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)I wish to raise the question of the distribution of the Queen's plate, but am not sure whether I can do so in this Vote.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThat will come lip in a later Vote.
§ (7.20.) DR. TANNERWe now come to the question of the chaplaincy to the Castle. It seems to me extraordinary that a clergyman of the Disestablished Episcopal Church in Ireland should occupy the position of chaplain. I should have thought that when the Church was disestablished, this office, this ridiculous sinecure would have been done away with. The chaplain has very few duties to perform; indeed, most of the members of the Lord Lieutenant's Household take a great interest in receiving, and very little in praying. Surely it is time this solemn farce was stopped. The ehaplain gets a very good sum of money. He has an allowance of £184 12s. 8d. a year, and an allowance in lieu of furnished house of £150. Speaking as a Protestant, I think it would be to the benefit of all parties if this solemn farce should be abolished. I know the chaplain is a very learned and a capable gentleman, and I have no doubt he feels very deeply 1354 the absurdity of his position. I hope the Chief Secretary; will see his way to at all events make some inquiry in the matter. In; the meantime, I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £335.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C be reduced by the sum of £335 (the salary of the Chaplain of Dublin Castle."—(Dr. Tanner.)
§ (7.25.) MR. J. O'CONNORI trust my hon. Friend will not persist with this Motion. We have now passed the Vote for the Lord Lieutenant's Household, which includes many gentlemen who must necessarily belong to the Protestant Church. While the House of Commons maintains these gentlemen in their offices it is only right and proper the House should provide for their religious observances. It has been the custom of the Committee to provide for these requirements in the past, and I trust that under present circumstances the Committee will not find it necessary to depart from that custom. I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion, and allow us to preceed to more serious matter.
§ (7.26.) DR. TANNERApparently my hon. Friend does not see the importance of this matter. You have surrounded the Lord Lieutenant with at least five or six Protestant Churches, and if these gentlemen are desirous of going to Church there is no reason why they should not walk about 300 yards to Christ Church or a few steps further in another direction to St. Andrew's. The Chapel Royal is scarcely attended by anybody except the dearly beloved clerk. I went there on two occasions many years ago, and I was struck by the paucity of the attendance. The Protestants of Ireland know this is a solemn farce, and would be glad to see it stopped, I sincerely hope a decision will be taken upon this point.
§ *(7.28.) MR. MORTONI must support the proposed reduction unless we get some explanation. Up to the present the Chief Secretary has not given us any explanation. Why should not the gentlemen connected with the Castle pay pew rents like other people? I certainly do not see why we in England should be called upon to pay for such expenses as these. I trust we shall 1355 have the courage to reduce this Vote. I entirely object to the speech the Chief Secretary delivered just now. He said, "Vote this money and let us get on to what is political matter." As I understand we have been discussing these votes as a matter of business. We are trying to study economy, trying to do away with what is absolutely useless expenditure. I have great pleasure in supporting the reduction. Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £26,394, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and subordinate Departments.
§ (7.33.) MR. W. O'BRIEN (Cork, N.E.)I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £4,425, the amount of the salary of the Chief Secretary. It is a little outrageous, perhaps, but I think nobody can have failed to notice a certain change of demeanour on the part of the Chief Secretary towards Irish Members. The right hon. Gentleman seems lately to have developed some spirit of courtesy, and even of blandishment, towards some at least of the criminal conspirators sitting on these Benches. Now, this would be very gratifying, and we should all, I think, be very glad to reciprocate it if, with the altered manner towards Irish Members in this House, there was any indication of a change in the treatment of the people of Ireland. We should be very much more impressed with the right hon. Gentleman's somewhat new-born courtesy towards Representatives of the people here, if it were accompanied with some consideration shown to an unfortunate newspaper editor in Ireland, who is now picking oakum among thieves in Tullamore Gaol; or for another gentleman who is lying on a plank bed in Cork Gaol to-night for protecting Protestant tenants. Let the right hon. Gentleman display his change of demeanour towards Mr. Tom Barry, a man of great influence, and held in much respect in the South of Ireland, who, a few days ago, was dragged handcuffed, without reason, 1356 through his own town of Mallow. I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to instruct Colonel Caddell to change his manner towards the people of Tipperary, and not to use filthy language towards a young woman in custody of his police, not to stick out his tongue at a clergyman, and proclaim his triumph at the grave of a Nationalist. These and many more such things we cannot help remembering, they are burned in upon our hearts, and we cannot help remembering that if the Chief Secretary has adopted a somewhat subdued tone towards Irish Members in the House, that happens after he has discovered that his other and original policy of insult and violence towards the Representatives of the Irish people did not commend itself to the constituencies of Great Britain quite so enthusiastically as he concluded it would. The right hon. Gentleman began with a very different sort of programme towards the Irish Members. We can hardly forget my hon. Friend the Member for North Monaghan (Mr. P. O'Brien) stretched in the street at Cork by my side with two frightful gashes in his head, his life hanging in the balance for a couple of weeks afterwards. We cannot forget the personal violence inflicted upon my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Tipperary and Mid Cork, while the man who ordered these attacks, instead of being brought to trial and sent to prison, is promoted to the post of County Inspector. Most fortunate—for those were the early days of coercion, "when the bloom was on the rye" it is pretty well off now—for us, the British constituencies, at bye-elections, rather moderated the enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman for gibing and coercion. I really think that every brilliant gibe of his must have cost his Party a seat in this House. It is pretty plain that he is a gentleman who can be improved by a little wholesome thrashing. We do not hear so much of the expressions of delight at the progress of his administration in Ireland. Only the other night, in a spirit of meekness and humility, he confessed that when two-years ago he boasted in this House to the British public that the National League in suppressed districts was a thing of the past, he only spoke in reference to what he desired.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hem. Gentleman is entirely mistaken, as lie will see on reference to the report of what I said in answer to a question in reference to attendance at suppressed meetings.
§ MR. W. O'BRIENI have not the slightest desire to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but does he now say that the National League in suppressed districts is a thing of the past?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURCertainly.
§ MR. W. O'BRIENDo I understand him to deny what he so piteously complained of the other night in this House, that he, with all his force in Tipperary, can make no headway against the power of the National League? Does he deny the Report cited in the House, that, at the last meeting held under the nose of his 130 policemen, in Tipperary, the three last adherents of Mr. Smith-Barry made their submission to the National League? I gave him credit for better things. Facts are too strong for him. There is no getting over the fact that, instead of crippling the power of the League, his Administration has increased the contributions to its resources until they exceed the contributions of half a century before to the national cause. He will find it hard to get out of the fact that, in six bye-elections in different parts of Ireland, not a single Representative of the Party opposite dared to put in an appearance, and three of these elections were in the province of Ulster, and one of the constituences was sacred by the residence of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh. I must say I had thought the right hon. Gentleman had changed his old tone of boasting. It seemed to me his speech on the Constabulary Vote if it meant anything was really a piteous appeal, a lament that he had been utterly foiled and was helpless against the irresistible power of the League in Tipperary and elsewhere. Though he has 130 police and nearly 700 soldiers massed in that one small town, he cannot point to a single officer of the law injured in the struggle. The worst crime he can inpute to the people of Tipperary'is that they insist that men shall choose their sides, that they shall throw in their fortunes with Mr. Smith-Barry if they love him, and have confidence in him, or with the people whom 1358 Mr. Smith-Barry has wantonly, wickedly endeavoured to exterminate. Whether there is any change or not in the tone of the right hon. Gentleman in this House, at all events there is a change of tactics rather than a change of administration in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has learned to conduct his operations in such a way that they do not attract attention in England, and they make no sensational appearance in the English Press. He fights pretty shy now of eviction campaigns, such as those carried out at Glenbeigh, Bodyke, and elsewhere. He conducts evictions now by surprise in half dozens. He takes care to provoke no more quarrels with prisoners in gaols. He takes care to have no more English visitors attacked and flung off platforms, as Mr. Wilfrid Blunt and Lady Ann Blunt were flung off the platform at Woodford. He hides his hand now, and carries out his operations stealthily, silently, and slowly; the work of clearing estates is carried on without attracting notice in England. This was done last year, when the backs of English visitors were turned, with little excitement, and little to attract English attention. The Chief Secretary is very fond of sneering at the English visitors to Ireland; but he himself once invited English visits to Ireland. He was not quite so ardent in pressing his invitation when it was suggested that English visitors might take the form of a Committee of this House, to investigate facts, and show the slanderous nature of the charges made against the people of Tipperary in this House. The right hon. Gentleman is never tired of jibing at English visitors to Ireland who happen to go and see for themselves; but, I venture to say, these English visitors have done more for the tranquility of Ireland, and for the permanent unity of the Empire, considerably more, than he has done with all the bayonets and coercion at his command. What is more, although he affects to sneer at these men, and the want of effect of their speeches compared with those of Irish Members, I venture to say he knows in his heart that these men are very much more formidable adversaries to his Party and Administration than we are, and this he has discovered from the results of the bye elections in this country. These men have, for them- 1359 selves, examined the daily work of coercion, the only way to iearn what is going on in Ireland under the present Administration. These men can tell their countrymen, from actual knowledge, the hardships of the Irish people, not in single instances, but in daily life. They can tell how clergymen and principal men in various districts in Ireland are hunted about the country by the police like thieves, under the suspicion that they intend to hold meetings. The persecution is well-nigh incredible to the English people. It astounds me to hear the Chief Secretary talk of intimidation by the people, and the sufferings they inflict. Why, they are the most marvellous people in the world, that, year after year, they have borne this system of cruelty and violent persecution at the hands of the myrmidons of the right hon. Gentleman. These things the English people now know from their own Representatives. It is as well to know in every constituency in England how, in the struggle between landlord and tenant, the dice are loaded against the unfortunate tenants, and every combination of landlords and English capitalists, many of them like those who back Mr. Smith-Barry, is petted and supported by the whole power of the Executive, at the expense of the British taxpayer, while the forces of the Crown are used, and the most desperate attempts are made, to terrorise the people and break down the combinations, so that many of them day and night are in constant dread of the visit of the Sheriff to confiscate their property, or the police to arrest them. Look at the state of things in the City of Cork. We dare not go there, because the people would assemble to greet us, and we know that from some dark ambush a gang of police would sally out and commence a savage bludgeon attack. We have seen, in the streets of Tralee, how the silent rising of the hat may subject a man to such treatment. This is how coercion works in Ireland, and these things are now known in England, in spite of the sneers of the Chief Secretary. There are districts in Ireland where you cannot find a man which has not had a member of his family evicted or put into prison. In Longford, one of the quietest towns in Ireland, you have a member of the Town Council, the Chairman of the Board of Guardians, five of the principal men of 1360 the town, all in prison, undergoing the treatment of criminals, upon some trumped-up charge of intimidation against them. In the noble town of Tipperary a boy was killed by a Force of 37 armed police. It is not there a question of the Plan of Campaign, in spite of all the Chief Secretary has said. I do not think any Judge would say so, not even my namesake would say it. The action of the tenants in Tipperary is as lawful as the dockers' strike in London. It is an unselfish, crimeless, fight for justice and humanity. We could go on accumulating facts, if it were any use piling Pelion upon Ossa, we could quote volumes showing the utter hopeless failure of every department of coercive policy. There is no disguising the fact that this unarmed peasantry have resisted all the force with which the Chief Secretary has been pounding at them for the past four years, In spite of the Olpherts, Clanricardes, and Ponsonbys, the people have defied the right hon. Gentleman and all his legions. The contest still goes on, but I do not think it can last much longer. So long as it does last it is our duty to expose the policy of the Chief Secretary, his failure, and gross ignorance of Irish affairs. There is no disguising the issue—either he must crush us or we must crush him and his administration. He still has his motley majority at his back in this House. [An hon. MEMBER: Of four.] No, more than four on the Irish question, for that happens to be the one question upon which they are together—together in a leaky boat in a heavy sea—and their only chance is to stick together, and together they will stick. The constituencies have long been united in condemning the verdict of the majority here, and are longing for the chance of shattering that majority to atoms. Meanwhile we are bound by our duty here to our people to protest by voice and vote against any admission that the Chief Secretary is entitled to any recognition for services rendered at the hands of the Irish people, or anyone who values the peace and tranquility of the Empire.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Item D be reduced by the sum of £4,425 (the salary of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant)."(Mr. William O'Brien.)
§ (8.0.) MR. J. O'CONNORDuring the opening remarks of my hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary denied that there had been any meeting held in Ireland of suppressed branches of the National League. Now, Sir, to-day I asked a question of the Chief Secretary, or rather of the Attorney General for Ireland, whether a meeting did not take place in Tipperary last Sunday, and whether it was not attended by 500 or 600 men, who subsequently marched into the town in procession, in order to show that such an assembly had taken place. The Attorney General, acting on the information supplied by the officer of the Chief Secretary, stood up and denied that any such meeting had taken place, or that such a procession had marched into the town. Now, I have read a report of the proceedings in no less than three different newspapers, and I am convinced that it did take place. In fact, I myself have attended many such meetings over and over again. I have addressed meetings of the suppressed branches within a short distance of the town of Tipperary, where you have 200 policemen and 700 soldiers, and those meetings have been held in the absence of policemen. I have addressed meetings of my constituents, under these circumstances; the priest has been in the chair and reporters have been present. Yet if I were to ask a question as to whether such a meeting had been held, either the Chief Secretary or the Attorney General would get up and assure the House that no such meeting had taken place, although I might have been present at it. The fact is the Chief Secretary is like a child, he shuts his eyes in the dark because he is afraid. He does not want to know that these meetings are held, he declines to admit their existence until something occurs which raises the fears of his own supporters, and then he is obliged to admit it, and to alter his policy. I daresay the right hon. Gentleman will declare that he has not altered his policy from the beginning, and that he has not changed his course of conduct. But I should like to point out to him one instance in which he has changed his policy, in deference to the public opinion created in this country, because his policy was inconsistent with the enlightened notions of the people of this country, and inconsistent with their ideas 1362 of punishment. The right hon. Gentle-I man stood up in this House last year, and, in reply to speeches which were made in opposition to his policy, in regard to the treatment of prisoners in Ireland, he admitted that owing to the manner in which prisoners were treated in Ireland, and owing to the impression which, he said, was made on English audiences by public speakers upon the subject, he admitted that a case had been made out for inquiry into the treatment of prisoners throughout the three Kingdoms. But although an inquiry was instituted the right hon. Gentleman did not await the Report of the Committee, but he directed the Prisons Board to make fresh bye-laws, which conceded every one of the main demands made on behalf of prisoners in Ireland for what we believe to be political offences. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of one of his speeches to-night, asked us to turn our backs on the twopenny-half-penny questions which he said were contained in the Votes we have just passed, and to turn to what he called the dramatic points which remained to be argued under the Vote. He might well style them dramatic, for there is a great drama being enacted in Ireland at the present moment. There are evictions going on in the presence of policemen and soldiers. People who are compelled to break the law are hauled before the Magistrates, who do not administer their duties according to the law, but who prefer to follow the instructions from Dublin Castle. The Chief Secretary may laugh at this, but does he mean to say that it has not taken place? Why, we can prove that it has, out of the Magistrates' own mouths. For instance, on one occasion Colonel Carew said he did not care about the law, or about evidence; he had his instructions from Dublin Castle. What are the Magistrates in Ireland doing? Why, last year 15 of these young men were brought before two of these Resident Magistrates, Messrs. Frewen and Meldon, in the town of Tipperary, and were charged with riot. The Resident Magistrates retired to consider the evidence, and they returned into Court and declared that the case against one of the defendants was dismissed, while, with regard to the other 14, they said they 1363 could not, on the evidence produced by the Crown, convict them of riot; but in order to put a stop to such proceedings they would direct the defendants to find bail to be on their good behaviour for 12 months, or to go to gaol for two months. Here are men absolutely declared by the Magistrates to be innocent of the charge preferred against them, yet, in order to carry out the in structions from Dublin Castle, they are compelled to give bait for their good behaviour, or else go to gaol for two months. What was the offence of these 15 young men—
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! This does not properly come under this Vote. It is a question which should be raised under the Vote affecting the present Magistrates.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORMy contention is that these Resident Magistrates were acting under the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary of Ireland. They are servants—
THE CHAIRMANOrder, Order! This matter cannot be entertained under this Vote. Questions affecting the general policy of the Chief Secretary may be taken, but the action of the Resident Magistrates must be discussed under the Vote affecting them.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORI have repeatedly brought this question before the House. I have asked the Chief Secretary to explain upon what principle the conduct of the Resident Magistrates can be justified. I have received from the right hon. Gentleman very unsatisfactory answers, and now I think it is incumbent on me to prove my contention that he is responsible, because he backing up these Magistrates in an un-constitutional manner, and in a manner which ought to be questioned in this House. I want to prove that my constituents have been treated by these Resident Magistrates, under orders from the Chief Secretary, in such a manner as to meet with the condemnation of the House. I think I am entitled to raise this question, because the Chief Secretary's salary is under discussion.
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! This subject can only be raised on the Vote for the Resident Magistrates.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORI wish to bring a charge against the police on this question.
THE CHAIRMANThe action of the police must be questioned on the Vote for the police. On the Vote for the Chief Secretary's salary only questions of general policy can be discussed. The action of any especial Department of the Executive in Ireland must be raised on the Vote affecting that particular Department.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYMay I submit that when the Chief Secretary moved the Closure the other night he made a statement to the effect that the police Vote and the Vote for his salary were very much the same thing, and they both involved the same question.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not think that was what I stated. What I intended to convey was that some of the questions which were raised on the Police Vote should have been raised on this Vote.
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! What occurred on that occasion does not affect this Committee. We cannot go into this question now.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORThe difficulty is to decide when a Resident Magistrate is acting as an executive officer, and when he is acting as a Judge. Take the case, for instance, of Mr. Cecil Roche, who sometimes sits on the Bench, and who at the same time may be conducting the actions of the police, and, while so acting, may be inciting them to murder people. On what Vote are we to question such conduct?
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! When the Vote including his salary comes under discussion it will be open to the hon. Member to raise this question.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORI submit that these are questions of general policy. The Chief Secretary justifies the action of these Resident Magistrates. Still it does not matter to me when I bring these matters forward. I can do it to-morrow just as well as to-day, and I will, therefore, in obedience to your ruling, Sir, pass on to another subject. I want to know from the Chief Secretary why it is that the men who shot down Heffernan in the streets of Tipperary have not been proceeded against. It was stated in the course of the Debate on the matter that the man in charge of the Force who committed this desperate deed had ordered the crowd to disperse. But I 1365 wonder is the Chief Secretary aware of the fact that it transpired in the evidence that the rules of the force on this occasion had not been complied with by this officer. According to those rules the crowd should first have been charged with batons, but, as a fact, this young policeman recklessly ordered the men under his command to fire, and he added instructions that they should aim to kill. I think the facts in this case should have induced the right hon. Gentleman to take further action. The Coroner, when the issue paper was handed to him by the Jury, said that they had found that the man Heffernan came by his death by a gunshot wound received on the 5th instant in the public streets of Tipperary, and that he died on the 7th. The Jury found a verdict of wilful murder against the District Inspector and a constable, and they further found that the constable fired the shot by the direction of the District Inspector. The Jury further added a rider calling upon the Government to take immediate steps to prevent a repetition of such occurrences, because they believed that such events would lead to anarchy and crime. Before the proceedings of that inquest closed the Crown Prosecutor stated that he had never seen an inquest conducted with more ability or greater impartiality than had been the case on that occasion. But what has been the result of that verdict? What has become of the officer who ordered the shot to be fired, and what has become of the policeman who fired the shot? I suppose the officer has followed the example of the District Inspector who distinguished himself by invading a non-proclaimed meeting, and calling upon the Force under his command to draw their swords, and charge the crowd and disperse it, with the result that they wounded no less than 30 or 40 men, without any warning and without reading the Riot Act. That Inspector, who was afterwards found guilty of assault by a Bench of Magistrates, but the informations concerning whom were subsequently quashed by the Government, was promoted to a Resident Magistracy, and I believe that every one of the men under his command on that occasion received a pecuniary reward, while in the case of this poor man Heffernan, who was murdered in the streets of Tipperary, I believe the Dis- 1366 trict Inspector has received promotion. Indeed, the police have discovered that the wise path to promotion in Ireland, under the existing r°gime, is by doing acts of violence to the people of the country, and by committing outrages upon personal liberty. And while I arm upon this point I may as well allude to one or two other matters of general policy. The Police Vote, I know, has been passed, but some of my constituents in Tipperary are being persecuted by the police. I have had brought under my notice the case of a man named Burke, who has been in the habit of earning his livelihood in the-streets of Tipperary by mending boots, and shoes. A short time ago it was brought under the notice of this House that he had been deprived of his livelihood, because the police surrounded the place where he worked, and by making, it appear to the people generally that the man was one of them, his customers were-scared away. I have received a letter calling particular attention to this case, and from that letter I gather that the man had to leave his usual post for working owing to the action of two or three policemen, who constantly stood by him and pretended that he was doing work for them. The consequence was that he lost his customers. He left the main street, and for nine weeks he was unable to get any work. He applied to the Board of Guardians for relief. Ultimately, he went back to his ol65 place, but he had no sooner taken up his position than three policemen presented themselves and prevented any of his customers approaching him. I think this is one of the cases which ought to be inquired into by the Chief Secretary. It shows the manner in which the people of Tipperary are treated by the police—a manner which is not calculated to maintain the peace of the town. If a dog persistently attacks a man the latter is entitled to take steps for his own protection. I look upon the police of Tipperary as being nothing better than a dog, and I think the people there ought to be protected from this vicious system of espionage, following, and shadowing, and if they are not so protected they will be justified in using any means that can be devised to protect themselves from such an obnoxious policy. I should like to deal with one other question arising 1367 out of tins recent difficulties in Ireland; In the course of a discussion on the dock strikes—
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! That question is pertinent to the Police Vote, and indeed it was discussed upon that Vote.
§ MR. J O'CONNORWe are discussing the policy of the Chief Secretary, and I must say that I find it very difficult, now that the Police Vote has been passed, to keep within the very narrow limits in which you are confining us, and I do hope that before these Votes are-finally passed-we shall have some opportunity of condemning the action of the Chief Secretary for the persistent persecution of the people, and for the miscarriage of justice by the Resident Magistrates. I cannot help remembering the conduct of these officials. For instance, Colonel Turner was in charge of a Military Force at some evictions on the Ponson by estate, and at the very scene of those evictions, while the people were writhing under the injustice of being driven from the homes which they had built, and from the farms which they had reclaimed by means of their own capital and labour—while they were writhing under this injustice, in the very midst of sorrow and tears, this Colonel Turner ordered the bagpipes and bands of soldiers under his command to play up their national airs and their merry tunes, in order to drown the wails of the people thus driven from their homes. We intend to do all in our power to bring these facts before the people who constitute the Court of final appeal, and in the very short period which will elapse between the close of this Session and the opining of next Session, we shall utilise all the time at our disposal in order to make these facts public.
§ (5.5.) MR. MACNEILLI would much prefer to discuss this matter more on the general aspects of policy than—as I am compelled to do by your repeated rulings, Sir—direct myself to the personal conduct of the Chief Secretary. A Chief Secretary who, with his high position and limited knowledge of the country, finds himself in possession of despotic authority over an entire country—into which he, perhaps, has never put a foot before being invested with that authority—has one or other 1368 of two courses to pursue. The moment he arrives at the seat of his administration he finds there a number of gentlemen, his officials. If he throws him self unreservedly into the hands of these gentlemen, everything, so far as he is concerned, will be rendered pleasant for him. There will be plenty of one-sided information given to him for the confusion of his opponents, and everything will go smoothly so long as he is content to view all matters with other eyes than his own. In the case of the present Chief Secretary, this system has been adopted, and it is now too late to alter it. If, three and a half years ago, he had put his foot down and taken an independent course, and had said, "I will examine things for myself; I will not take a one sided view of every prosecution in Ireland," things would not have gone so smoothly. No doubt his servants would have been courteous, but they would not have liked it; and if he had made mistakes, they would have been secretly delighted and would have been ready to say, "Well, you would not be advised by us, and now you must put up with the consequences." If the right hon. Gentleman had brought fresh eyes to the Administration, however, the results, far as Ireland is concerned, would have been very different. At present he is simply dealing with officials who are actuated by the fear of the loss of their posts, and he gives them a power-of-attorney over his voice, his conscience, and his influence in the House. He has thrown himself entirely into the hands of the Castle officials, and as far as answers to questions are concerned the right hon. Gentleman is nothing more than a telephone between the officials and the House of Commons, and his salary might well be cut down to the cost of the telegrams. In answering supplementary questions, of course, he displays great ability, resource, and cleverness; and no one would admire him more than I should every afternoon if these questions and answers were a mere dialectical game—a mere game in a drawing room—but it becomes a very serious thing when we reflect that on these matters depend not merely the personal triumph of some smart repartee, but the lives and happiness of the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, fails to realise that Irish politics are something 1369 more serious than a highly intellectual game. As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the trouble of seeing things for himself. He has simply placed himself in the hands of persons who are interested, and there is one feature in the right hon. Gentleman's administration which is in complete contrast with every other administration in Ireland. Other Chief Secretaries have spent the greater portion of their time in Ireland, but last year the right hon. Gentleman was only in Ireland for six or seven weeks out of six or seven months that he might have spent there. I have had the curiosity to make a note of the dates, and I find that Parliament last year rose on the 30th of August, but that the Chief Secretary did not put in an appearance in Ireland until October 24th. He was away during that period of excitement, when, if he was any good at all in Ireland, his presence would have been most valuable. He was away during the rise of the Tenants' Defence Association, during the founding of the Smith-Barry Syndicate, and the transactions which took place in Maryborough. And when he came to Ireland, he only remained until the 16th November, reappearing on the 16th December, and remaining until the 30th January. Where was he is the intervals? Why, ho was in England or Scotland governing Ireland by correspondence with men whose words, as we contend, are thoroughly unreliable on all matters affecting Irish administration. It is no exaggeration when I say that the Castle officials are practised in falsehood. They seem to be continually undergoing a competative examination to see who is the boldest and most effective liar. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is a man of intelligence; he knows in this dialectical game of question and answer on which side the truth lies, but he sticks to his official information. He has received his official instructions, and he sticks to them. The hon. Member for Dover, the Chief Secretary's secretary since he has assumed his present post, has made some references to Irish history. I would remind him and the Chief Secretary that in Grattan's Parliament, when a very respectable gentleman had committed the error of making his position in Parliament the medium of 1370 publishing slanders and falsehood, although he did not know that the words; he had used were slanderous or false, and had given his authority for them—which the Chief Secretary never does, except to say that he has got his information from the police—Grattan got up and declared that the informant of the hon. Member was a gross, public liar, and in the most vigorous terms condemned the misconduct of the Member who was capable of giving expression to the slanders put into his mouth by officials. We can imagine from that what Grattan would have said if he could have heard the Chief Secretary day after day, relying upon the words put into his mouth by the Castle officials. The Chief Secretary I have always regarded as a man of great ability, but, at the same time, I am sure he is too much of a philosopher to believe in political miracles. Yet it would be a political miracle if the right hon. Gentleman were anything but what, under the circumstances, he ought to be and is, namely, an example of gigantic ignorance as to the primary facts of Irish social life Twelve months ago the right hon. Gentleman got up on the Police Vote and said that within a few months the relations between the police and the Irish people would be as harmonious as the relations between the police and the people in any country on the face of the globe. How have those predictions been realised? Why, on the very eve of the murder of Inspector Martin the right hon. Gentleman, in the only speech he ever delivered in Ireland—a speech delivered at a ghastly banquet of place hunters whose names would never have been known if the Nationalist Party had not got hold of them and published them—actually congratulated his audience on the excellence of the relations between the police and the people. The right hon. Gentleman did the same thing only a few evenings ago, having unfortunately for himself neglected to read the Dublin newspapers which contained the best possible evidence as to the nature of the relations existing between the police and the people of Ireland. Those newspapers contained a report of an action brought before the Lord Chief Baron by an individual1 against a police constable in reference to a transaction which took place at Charleville last year, and at the trial Mr. 1371 Carson (who is to be the successor of the Irish Attorney General in the representation of Dublin University when the right hon. and learned Gentleman is elevated to the Bench, and who is known in Ireland as "Balfour Junior") got up and said that the police were described by reporters for telegraphic summary purposes as "Balfour's Bloodhounds." And this is a Force which the right hon. Gentleman says is a popular Force. Let us test his knowledge of popular sentiment from the little speeches he sometimes makes in England and Scotland. Last year, speaking in Scotland, he brought a charge against Father M'Fadden. He said Father M'Fadden was a gentleman who had constantly used his clerical position to the detriment of his parishioners.
§ *MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)Hear, hear.
MR. MAC NEILL"Hear, hear," says the Donegal Investigator. I will not say anything about him, but will merely state what Father M'Fadden has done—and I must say, from a knowledge of the facts, that I believe the right hon. Gentleman when he made that statement about the rev. gentleman was in ignorance of what he was talking about, or probably only received his information from the hon. Member for South Tyrone. Father M'Fadden is a priest who has established schools in an extensive parish, who has obtained no less than £8,000 from America to relieve the temporary wants of his parishioners, and in a country where illicit distillation is greatly in vogue has in an increasing parish an increasing number of teetotalers. This gentleman has been a constant benefactor to the poor people of his district, and yet we have a Chief Secretary with a salary of £5,000 a year not disdaining to attempt to take away the character of such a devoted priest by making charges that he would not bring to trial even before one of his packed juries. Such are the statements the right hon. Gentleman is induced to make on the information supplied to him. The hon. Member for Mayo said the other day that he had been struck by a policeman's baton. Up started the right hon. Gentleman with the statement that the hon. Member must have been misinformed. The hon. Member had not been struck; the police had told him so. 1372 In connection with the case of the boy O'Donoghue, who was murdered at Timoleague in cold blood, the attention of the Chief Secretary was directed by one of the Members for Cork to the fact that drunkenness had taken place amongst the police in the town. The right hon. Gentleman confused the case with what had occurred at Portumna, and had no idea that the men had been murdered by his constables in cold blood. When it is said that the police disturb bonfires, the right hon. Gentleman replies that they have a right to do so, such things being an obstruction, but he ought to know that there is nothing to obstruct in Irish villages at night time. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's action towards Irish officials, when one of the people is promoted amongst his follows, and popular honours are conferred upon him, he becomes at once a marked man by the Dublin Castle sentry. In the case of the late Lord Mayor of Dublin, at the opening of a Commission, although it had always been customary for this civic functionary to attend and take his seat amongst the Judges, the custom was departed from on that occasion because the Lord Mayor was a Nationalist. In the same way, the Lord Mayor of Wexford, because he had been convicted under the Coercion Act, was removed from the list of ex officio visitors of the Enniscorty Lunatic Asylum. And by these means the right hon. Gentleman expects to establish law and order in Ireland. There are few criminals in Ireland, but we give little thanks to the right hon. Gentleman. When real crimes are committed, the police take little pains to investigate them. There was a burglary at Pill Lane, in Dublin, within a few yards of the police barracks, and a man was nearly killed, but the perpetrators of the outrage were never brought to justice. Has the right hon. Gentleman, who came into power to strike oil for the landlords, done so much as strike terror into a single tenant? Has Mr. Olphert got a penny of his rent after the awful persecution his people have been subjected to? The right hon. Gentleman has unroofed no fewer than 300 houses on that estate, and has made houseless no fewer than 1,500 people. He has arrested no fewer than 150 people. He has, through his 1373 agents, placed the handcuffs on peasants, who have been put into an open boat and taken to be put on board a gunboat, though the captain refused to take them unless he received the keys of the handcuffs. He probably thought the administration of the right hon. Gentleman was, to use a phrase which has become Parliamentary, damnable. Now as to Mr. Olphert himself. I have here a secret circular. It was dated August 8th, 1889, and signed by Robert McClinton, D.M. In it the writer invited contributions to a fund which he was trying to raise on be half of Mr. Olphert, and said it was plain that the battle at Palcarragh was one between law and order on one side, and communism and anarchy on the other. He added that Mr. Olphert could not without assistance continue the fight, as he had received no rent for three years. Two days before that letter was written a most remarkable admission was made by the Chief Secretary with regard to the battering ram. Of all Governments this is the Government of what is called the even keel. They announced that they would preserve strict and equal laws between landlord and tenant; they would see that neither side took advantage of the other. But they supplied the police with the battering ram, which was employed by the landlord to destroy the houses in Falcarragh, and the Chief Secretary justifies the use of that instrument. On the 6th of August, 1889, the Chief Secretary said in this House, "I am perfectly ready to defend the use of the ram." [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!] Well, it has won more elections than all the sneers of the right hon. Gentleman put together. The cost of the ram does not appear on the Estimates, because it was paid by the Association of Landlords, presided over by Lord Courtown. That Association gave it to the Chief Secretary, and he gave it to the police to work. I defy the right hon. Gentleman to contradict my statement. The Chief Secretary said, "I am prepared to defend on any platform in England the use of the instrument." I have here a model of the ram. [The hon. Gentleman exhibited the model.] It was made out of the piece of the beam of the real ram I have been speaking of. On one occasion the ram was broken, and the wood out of which my model was 1374 made was picked up. Now, I will lend the right hon. Gentleman the ram to lecture with on any public platform he chooses, and, what is more, I and other Irish Members will undertake to be present in order to preserve the peace. The right hon. Gentleman might use the ram on the occasion of his next lecture at the Church Congress, which lecture might very appropriately relate to the seige of Jerusalem. Now, the right hon. Gentleman was new in Ireland until he accepted the office of Chief Secretary. That was his misfortune and not his fault. He was only three days in office when Captain Plunkett was in the law room at Dublin Castle. The right hon. Gentleman was present and advised Captain Plunkett to send that awful telegram to Youghal, "If resistance be offered do not hesitate to shoot the people." The right hon. Gentleman defended the telegram. He said—
The sergeant of police would have been guilty of grave dereliction of duty if he had not tired to kill. It was contrary to every received regulation that an armed force dealing with a crowd should lira deliberately over the heads.Since then no fewer than 14 men have met their death at the hands of the police, and not one of the men who caused these deaths has been one hour in custody. The police have fired to kill. They have followed the right hon. Gentleman's advice, and 14 men have been slain by them. No fewer than 1,000 men have been injured. In consequence of your ruling, Sir, I am not able to speak of the Resident Magistrates except in direct connection with the right hon. Gentleman. I ask if it is worthy of a gentleman in the Chief Secretary's position to bring up to the Castle the dependent Resident Magistrates—men whose salary is everything to them—and to confer with them. He has repeatedly denied that he has spoken to these men in reference to pending coercion cases. But what right has he to bring these men up to the Castle? He is the hero, and they are nothing more than the valets. His conduct in this matter is not that of a statesman. He cannot deny that the men have been to the Castle, and a few days afterwards they have proved themselves the Government's puppets. Lord Londonderry, immedi- 1375 ately on leaving Ireland, made a speech at Stockton, and in that speech he said his experience during the past three years had convinced him it was utterly hopeless to even attempt to govern Ireland except by exceptional powers. That is the testimony of the late Lord Lieutenant, the former head of the Irish Administration. Is that the establishment of law and order? But even the Orangemen of Ireland are discontented. Three years ago some of my own constituents presented an address to the Chief Secretary, in which they described him as brave and magnanimous, but recently Dr. Kane commented very adversely upon the right hon. Gentleman's proceedings. In the colonies, too, the right hon. Gentleman's conduct meets with the disapproval it deserves. Sir George Grey, a very distinguished New Zealand minister, has condemned in the strongest language the Coercion Act, and said that the people in the distant parts of the Empire were determined to render help to the Irish people in their time of trial. This is a matter which appeals to human nature. We wish to defend the poor, to re-establish in our own country our own Constitution, our own laws, and we cannot longer tolerate the gentlemen who administer the affairs of our country.
§ (9.50.) MR. SHEEHY (Galway, S.)The Chief Secretary has often boasted of his marvellous success in the government of Ireland; but I venture to say he has failed, and is bringing destruction to his own friends. Let me to night call attention to some of the methods he is employing in Ireland. He has encouraged the landlords to proceed on a wild enterprise of eviction against their tenants. In giving this encouragement he is only luring them on to their own ruin. I think it is right the Committee should be put in possession of the facts relating to this encouragement, and that the British taxpayers should know into what illegal channels some of the money of the Treasury goes. In 1886 the present President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks Beach) was Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and in a Debate on the Estimates in that year his attention was called to the practice of evicting landlords applying for and getting extra police for protection duty and making a profit out of the transaction. The method by which these land- 1376 lords made a profit was to charge for their cars which the police used. The then Chief Secretary promised to take care that no landlords, and no persons receiving police protection, should make a profit out of the transaction. He went further, and promised that those who sought police protection should be required to contribute something towards the cost. I want to know how much has ever been required from any landlord towards the cost of the police that have been given to them for their protection duty. How much has the Chief Secretary received from Lord Clanricarde for the army of police placed at that nobleman's disposal daring the last four years? I presume I am within the mark when I say Mr. Tenner, Lord Clanricarde's agent, has as many as 100 policemen at his command. These men are paid out of the British Treasury. They are doing no service to the State, but are, in fact, Lord Clanricarde's lackeys. I desire to know, also, whether Lord Clanricarde is being paid barrack rent for the old castle in Portumna? If so, on what ground is such rent being paid? There is another case worthy of notice. There is a great number of evicted houses in the town of Tipperary. The ordinary police force in the town is something like 30, but now it is 150. Extra barrack accommodation is therefore necessary. Such accommodation has been provided by the use of three evicted houses on the estate of the hon. Member for South Huntington (Mr. Smith-Barry). I want to know if the hon. Member is getting a rent for those evicted houses. The policemen are really doing bailiff duty for the hon. Member, and I want to know whether the hon. Member is being paid a rent for the houses in which his ordinary tenants would not stay. These are very pertinent questions to put four years after the promise of a Minister of the Crown that no evicting landlord should make a profit out of the protection afforded him. We charge that the entire resources of the Government in Ireland are handed over to the landlords, and we charge that everything that it is possible for the landlords to do the Government are prepared to support. We charge that so perplexed has everything in Ireland become, that the tenants can have no protection of their own; they dare not combine, while the landlords may com- 1377 bine to hearts content. We charge that the police are handed over as lackeys to the landlords. There was a curious illustration of this only last week, when I was in the town of Tipperary. We have heard a great deal about the shadowing by the police of certain persons in Ireland. As Father Humphreys was leaving his house, the two policemen told off to keep watch over him, at once proceeded after him, but the agent of the estate was at that moment leaving his office, which is opposite to Father Humphrey's house. The agent called one of the policemen back and ordered him to go round to the stables and order his carriage. And this policeman left his duty which he was specially charged to perform and went round to the stable to order the carriage as directed. Well, another matter I have to call attention to is this: Statements are constantly made on the other side of the House upon the number of farms that are being taken. Over and over again it has been stated that a number of evicted farms have been taken, and that the country is settling down to peace, happiness, and contentedness. But when we ask for more definite information, we are met with the answer, "No; to give you names would be to subject persons to moonlighting and outrage." If we deny that any body of tenantry have broken from the Plan of Campaign, the right hon. Gentleman says—"Yes, a certain; number of tenants have paid their rent, but we cannot give their names lest these people should be subjected to outrage and perhaps murdered." Now, I asked a question a few weeks ago in reference to the conduct of a policeman down in Portumna going about on the Clanricarde property with a list from which he was telling the tenants who had paid their rents. Now what does the right hon. Gentleman mean? Here is a policeman going about the country giving the people just that information which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, is calculated to rouse the people to frenzy and lead to the perpetration of outrage and perhaps murder. Are we to understand that he wants an outrage campaign started at Portumna? He must defend his policeman for this conduct, going about and making known 1378 the names of paying tenants, or else he must condemn the police for doing that which he in this, House, said would be attended with danger and possible loss of life to paying tenants. Another instance I give of the manner in which the authorities in Ireland give themselves away to the landlords. I asked a question a short time ago about the two emergency men of Lord Clanricarde's who were caught in the act of stealing turf from the cabin of an evicted tenant. The evidence was too conclusive, but the men were dismissed because the tenant has his remedy by civil process. Now, will the Committee be surprised to learn that these turf thieves were on the occasion accompanied and actually guarded by policemen—
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! Much of what the hon. Member has been saying would have been pertinent to the Police Vote, but does not properly belong to this Vote.
§ MR. SHEEHYThe manner in which I wish to apply it is this: I assume that the Chief Secretary is responsible for the government of Ireland and for the handling of the constabulary, to a certain extent, and I assume that these universal practices could not take place if they had not his sanction and support.
THE CHAIRMANThat is not enough; the administration of Ireland is divided into several Departments, and upon each there is the opportunity for debate. Matters of policy are cognate to the Chief Secretary's Vote, but the hon. Member is raising a matter which is pertinent to the Constabulary Vote.
§ MR. SHEEHYThe Chief Secretary defends the action of the police in this House. He gives us answers to our questions, which answers we have not the opportunity of replying to until we have these Votes before us in Committee. But I will not press the matter if you Say, Sir, that it should be raised on the Constabulary Vote. But I may be permitted to draw the attention of the Committee to the manner in which the Chief Secretary uses his position as representative of the landlord class, to give all the support he can to the landlords of Ireland as against the tenants of Ireland. This is the charge we bring against him, and I regret that I have transgressed the Rules of the House in bringing forward instances. But I am satisfied 1379 with having put these few facts before the Committee, and I will leave the Committee to judge if the right hon. Gentleman is earning his salary by an honest use of the power in his hands.
§ *(10.37.) MR. T. W. RUSSELLThis Vote, I understand, is challenged because, under the administration of the Chief Secretary, there are certain districts in Ireland where very sad things are occurring and where the Police Force is used in a way in which it is contended that it ought not to be used. If we were to take the statements given by hon. Members below the Gangway, one would imagine that the whole of Ireland is in a state of confusion and disorder. I do not think that it is possible for the Committee to accept any such statement. As a matter of fact, the whole of Ireland with the exception of certain well-defined areas, is in a state of profound peace and quiet. I quite admit that there are areas which have long been subject to the Plan of Campaign which are in a state of disturbance, such as Youghal, Woodford, and Tipperary, but I traverse the statement that the whole of Ireland is in that state. On the contrary, I repeat that with the exception of these districts Ireland is in a state of profound peace, and I am glad to say is prosperous. Now, I want in the short space of time I shall occupy, to direct attention to one of these areas to which I have referred, where a considerable number of people are subject to intimidation, from which I think that the Government ought to strain every nerve to protect them. I had some doubts whether this matter would more properly come under the Police Vote, but I made up my mind that it would come more appropriately under the Chief Secretary's Vote. I take the case of Tipperary. I heard the hon. Member for East Mayo state that what is going on there is simply the same thing that goes on in a Trade Union strike in England, and he drew a comparison with the dockers strike in London.
§ MR. DILLONNo; the comparison and the contrast I drew was between the action of picketing in the dockers' strike and in the Leeds gas strike and the practice of shadowing in Ireland.
§ *MR. T. W. RUSSELLWhat I complain of is that there are people in Tip- 1380 perary who have been coerced, and for whom no adequate protection is found. It may be urged that the action of the League is the same as that taken in a Trade Union strike, as far as picketing is concerned. The first objection I urge against that is that in the case of the dockers' and the gas strike the people conceived that they had a grievance to strike against. I submit that it is impossible to prove that the people of Tipperary consider that they have a grievance. On the contrary, I am prepared to prove by documents and by evidence that the people of Tipperary conceived that they had no grievance, but were coerced into this fight, and therefore the cases are not upon all fours. In the second place, the dockers were allowed and were free to strike, but they were not free to intimidate others who did not wish to strike. My complaint is, that the claim is put forward by hon. Members below the Gangway that those who strike should be free intimidate those who do not wish to do so. Now, I wish to bring several cases under the notice of the Chief Secretary, for he alone has the power to put this matter right. I wish to bring several cases to his notice where I think the people have been grossly coerced and abused. And, first, I take the case of the Presbyterian minister of Tipperary and his family.
THE CHAIRMANSo far the hon. Member appears to be leading up to an arraignment of the police. If that is so, he will not be in order; but perhaps before the hon. Member enters into details, he will state what his line of argument is.
§ *MR. T. W. RUSSELLI am going to bring under the notice of the Chief Secretary, the responsible Minister for Ireland, certain cases of individuals in the town of Tipperary who are being injured and fired at, and I am going to urge the Chief Secretary to give them adequate protection. I conceive that this would be in order, and it would be very hard if those people were debarred from having their case stated.
THE CHAIRMANI have prevented hon. Members arguing the other side of the question, and I think that inaction as well as excessive action on the part of the police should be discussed under the Police Vote.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYMay I ask if the hon. Gentleman voted for the Closure the other night?
§ *MR. T. W. RUSSELLI stated, probably before the hon. Member entered, that I had some doubt whether I ought to bring on this matter under the Police Vote, but I considered it would be more pertinent to this Vote. What I wish to bring under the Chief Secretary's notice on the Vote for his salary, is the position of five or six individuals who have not received adequate protection from the right hon. Gentleman. If I am not at liberty to do that, Mr. Courtney, I will immediately resume my seat, but I invite a direct instruction from you whether I should be in order.
§ (10 45.) MR. T. M. HEALYThe hon. Member for South Tyrone seems to have been "hoist with his own petard." His grievance is against the Chief Secretary, who has, no doubt, misled him. The Chairman of Committees knows his duty, but the Chief Secretary distinctly led us to believe—
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! The Chief Secretary is not the controlling power. As I have already said, the hon. Member is not entitled to go back on that matter.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI was only about to remark that the right hon. Gentleman has deceived his follower into the impression that the one speech would do for either Vote. I see the area of the right hon. Gentleman's misrepresentation is spreading, and has affected even the hon. Member for South Tyrone. However, Sir, accepting your ruling, I address myself to the general policy of the right hon. Gentleman and his dealings with Ireland. The fourth year of the administration of Her Majesty's present Government has now been reached, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has now any other policy than shadowing and coercion? The right hon. Gentleman told us here the other night that we ought not to put so many questions to him. He said if we will insist on indulging in that luxury, he can only give us official information placed at his disposal. But, said the right hon. Gentleman, "It is open to you to avoid being galled by my statements, and you may avoid being troubled by 1382 my answers by not putting questions." Why did not the right hon. Gentleman go further, and suggest that if we come here at all, we should spend our time on the Terrace or in the Smoking Room? Yes, we have asked many questions, but in no single instance has the right hon. Gentleman attempted to give a satisfactory statement in answer to questions. I deny the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he has given the House all the information sent him by the police. My belief is, from comparison of facts and replies to secondary questions, that the right hon. Gentleman deliberately inverts the information he gets at the Irish Office, and does not give us even the information supplied by the police. His manner and his method have been reduced to a system. His first object is to insult the Irish Members, and his next to irritate and annoy the questioner, and thirdly, he endeavours to provoke a laugh on his own side of the House. If anybody was to ask him whether on a certain date the sun shone in Ireland he would begin with his accustomed formula, the Constabulary report to him that from the complaints made as to the potato blight or the inability of farmers to pay rent or from the natural humidity of the soil it was very doubtful indeed whether on a certain day the sun shone in Ireland. But we intend on this Vote to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions even at the risk of getting some very unsatisfactory replies. What has become of his great drainage scheme? During 1887–8–9 we heard a great deal of the enormous damage which was done to Ireland through want of drainage of, the Shannon, the Barrow, and the Bann, and we were told that all Ireland wanted was arterial drainage. But nothing has been done to promote that great drainage scheme. Then the right hon. Gentleman had another great policy, which was that of light railways. I supported that scheme in the innocence of my heart. But where are the light railways? Not a pick has been put into the ground, and not a barrow-full of earth has been turned. There was another great policy of the Government, and that was the conferring of University education on the Catholics of Ireland. I ask the Chief Secretary what has become of that now? Has the money for light railways been 1383 diverted to erecting a Catholic University, or has the money for the drainage schemes been used for that purpose? Nothing of the kind, and the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman at Manchester, Leeds, and also at Glasgow and Edinburgh, where he tried to convert the Scotch people to his views, a difficult task for the author of "Philosophic Doubts," have had no result at all. No, while declaring that the Catholics of Ireland were entitled to University education, the moment a ripple of dissent appeared among the right hon. Gentleman's Protestant friends and the Orange lodges of Belfast, the Catholic University passed out of the policy of Her Majesty's Government like the baseless fabric of a vision. To-day another blow has struck their hearts; the Land Purchase Bill has been dropped. That fourth blossom of the four-leaved shamrock of the Irish policy of Her Majesty's Government has been withered and blighted by the heat of July. It was on the Land Purchase Bill that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord uttered his famous "Certainly, Sir," and that "it never, no never," would be dropped. And now we hear it is gone the way of the Tithes Bill and the Compensation Bill. What has become of that other great branch of Conservative policy—the extension of Local Government to Ireland? The Unionist Party came in on a number of planks somewhat unskilfully nailed together. The points of some of the nails appear to be sticking out, and are making the seats of some Members of Her Majesty's Government rather uncomfortable. What has become of the great policy of extending Local Government to Ireland which was promised in the Queen's Speech? We all know how ardent a supporter of Local Government the right hon. Gentleman is. We do not ask him inconvenient questions as to the unhandsome corpses of murdered Irishmen, which ought not to come between the wind and his nobility; but we do ask him what has become of his policy in regard to light railways and Catholic University education. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be much better pleased if we were to confine ourselves to questions upon which he can begin with the prelude to his well-known litany, as to what the estab- 1384 lished Authorities have reported to him. But those Authorities are not responsible for the non-passage of the Local Government for Ireland measure, announced in the Queen's Speech, nor for the dropping of the Land Purchase Bill, the Drainage Bill, and a number of other dropped schemes and broken pledges of the Government. The person responsible for these things is the right hon. Gentleman himself, who has a seat in the Cabinet, and who is put forward as the spokesman of the Government on all occasions such as this. We want to know on what cry the Conservative Party propose to go to the country at the next General Election? [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh now, but by-and-bye they may have to laugh on the wrong side of their mouths. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman hopes that he and his Party may keep together for a considerable period longer. [Colonel SAUNDERSON: "Hear, hear!"] That statement is received by the feeble duty cheer of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, which, however, does not obtain the resonance which might have been expected from the other supporters of the Government. I claim that we ought to be allowed, after the Session which is about to close, to go about and inform our constituents what they have to expect from a Conservative Government. If I go to Ireland to address my constituents on subjects relating to rent, or to shadowing by the police, I shall have to do so at the risk of having my head batoned; but what I desire is to inform the Irish people of all the good things that are in store for them. I do not desire to say a harsh word of the Government. On the contrary, I desire that the Government will, so to speak, fill my bag with gifts, so that when I go back to Ireland I may be able to eschew all the troublesome subjects relating to battering rams and prison clothes and ejectments, and the other nasty topics which are so burdensome to the right hon. Gentleman. These are the subjects the right hon. Gentleman desires to avoid. They have been referred to by him as "squalid details." Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman includes the Resident Magistrates among these squalid details, I can have no objection. What I desire to know is, what is the programme of the Government, and 1385 what it is they propose to do in the next Session to make good the promises and pledges they have broken in the past? I will give one slight illustration of how little confidence is to be reposed in Her Majesty's Government, even by those who profess to be their great supporters, in Ireland. There is at present a belief in Ireland that the Attorney General for Ireland is about to vacate his seat, in order to secure his well-deserved reward as the occupant of a seat on the Irish Bench. But that appointment will inevitably create a vacancy in the representation of Trinity College, Dublin, hitherto supposed to be the one secure paddock in which the Government palfrey might amble at will. Among the persons composing the electorate of that ennobled and enlightened constituency, which is said to contain all the wealth and intelligence and education of the community—even in that calm and peaceful abode of learning and crudition—a rift has occurred. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has written a letter in favour of the candidature of Mr. Carson, but the landlord party have put forward a candidate of their own, Mr. Lowrie, so that the present Government, who have declared that one of the main portions of their Irish policy is to be found in the Land Purchase Bill, are now being opposed even in Trinity College by a Representative of the landlord interest. Thus the Government are met by a declaration that the constituency of this hitherto pocket borough will support not the Government candidate, but the candidate of an independent party. Well, Sir, we claim to know what satisfaction are the Irish people to have in future. We have had four years of Conservative policy in the administration of Ireland, and we are told that during that time Ireland has progressed. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech the other day, in which he spoke of the enormous prosperity of the Irish people, and he was backed in that by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). I find, however, from statistics that in all those matters which may be taken to denote the condition of the wealth and prosperity of the people there has been instead of an advance a decline and falling off. Whether we take the imports or exports, or the money in the 1386 savings' banks, I assert that in every single item which may be regarded as an index of the prosperity of the country there has been a distinct decline. For example, if you take the tonnage entering the Port of Dublin, and if you go from that to the figures given in the Returns of the Registrar General, every single index points to a fall.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)Will the hon. Gentleman give the entries for the Port of Belfast?
§ MR. T. M. HEALYBelfast, Ireland?
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONYes.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYYes. But let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that Belfast is increasing, and I am delighted to hear that it is increasing. But increasing Belfast does not compensate me for decreasing Ireland. Much as I like Belfast, I love Ireland more. An infinitesimal increase in Belfast is no compensation for the steady decline over the rest of Ireland of every element that constitutes the prosperity of the country. I will give the tonnage of the country as a whole. I find from the Registrar General's Return that the inward bound tonnage increased from 2,000,000 tons in 1841, to 3,200,000 tons in 1881, and to 6,000,000 tons in 1887. That proves that articles of commerce formerly manufactured in Ireland are now bought elsewhere. It is the outward bound tonnage which shows the true prosperity of the country. It is needless to quote the figures, but any hon. Gentleman who thinks he can traverse my statement need only refer to the Registrar General's Returns, or to the figures of Mr. Grimshaw, during the past 12 months, and he will find my assertion, that Ireland under a Conservative Government has declined in prosperity in every single element that constitutes prosperity, is a correct assertion. What have we got upon the other side of the ledger? We have got the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, and the increase of his police. The cost and number of the police go on steadily increasing. The population keeps falling off. The number of prisoners in gaol goes on increasing. The Chief Secretary tells us that the number of outrages is decreasing. The number of emigrants going to America continues at the same rate, and the country which some years ago had a population of 1387 8,000,000 has now a population of 4,000,000. When the Chief Secretary tells us that the people of Ireland are more attached to law and order I challenge his statement, and invite him to use the police whose duty it will be to gather the Census Returns to ascertain the opinions of the people with regard to his administration. The right hon. Gentleman in the past has been famous, as I have shown over and over again, for creeping out of his pledges made to this House. It is idle to taunt the right hon. Gentleman with broken pledges. When we remind him that he promised appeal, he invariably replies that that was disposed of last year. If we show that he makes a statement this year of a different character to that which he made last year, his invariable reply is that this is 1890 and not 1889. The right hon. Gentleman has had four years' experience in his administration, and, now that there is one great English Party in the State opposed to the other great English Party on the question of Ireland, I ask him what are his hopes for the future. For the first time, Mr. Courtney, the Irish people are encouraged and are enabled to look forward to an amelioration of their condition. As a statesman the right hon. Gentleman must know that his policy will be reversed if he is beaten at the polls. What epitaph will be written on his policy, and upon his statesmanship? Can he look back with any satisfaction to the fact that practically he himself has borne the whole burden of this entire experiment of coercion in Ireland for the last four or five years, and that when it is reversed the verdict will be a verdict expressly against him and his policy, and that it will be for ever practically impossible for any future Conservative Administration ever to return to the lines which have been rejected? Therefore, his entire policy is dependent for success at the polls at the next General Election. But if we, the Irish Members, are beaten at the polls, we will carry on the contest as before. Defeat will mean very little to us. The Irish have been like a toad under the harrow for centuries. But it is essential to the Chief Secretary and his Party that they should succeed at the polls. What is the policy of the right hon. Gentleman for the future? The Liberal Party have 1388 put a distinct policy before the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman has brought forward a policy of land purchase as his sole policy. And what is the verdict upon that in the North of Ireland? Nothing more clearly denotes the feeling of the North of Ireland than the Resolutions that have been passed with reference to compulsory purchase. They know very well that the tenants of the South and West of Ireland will be able to carry out the purchase, because they know that in the South and West the tenants can squeeze the landlords out. The hon. Member for North Armagh makes speeches in Ulster during the July fever. Do you find him praise compulsion? No. "King Billy" is trotted out as of yore. The feuds of 200 years ago, dead and buried, are revived; the bands play "Protestant Boys" and "Croppies lie down." But will this fill the stomachs of the frieze coats who have votes? Even in the loyal corner of Ireland the policy of the right hon. Gentleman is fruitless and barren. The hon. Member for South Tyrone will go about talking of the Land Purchase Bill, but what is the good of introducing that measure to the loyal farmers, if the loyal landlords will not sell to the loyal farmers? The loyal landlords are very glad to get the loyal farmers' pounds, shillings, and pence, paid quarterly or half-yearly as the case may be. If the right hon. Gentleman objects to squalid details, and does not like the corpses of Mitchelstown brought between the wind and his nobility, we are entitled to soar to the higher regions of Conservative statesmanship to track the pathless waste for some glimmer of the pilot balloons which are supposed to be sailing through the azure. Let the Chief Secretary throw his grapnels into the sure ground of Conservative statesmanship, and, throwing aside all these miserable details about plank beds and prison clothes, leaving the gaol corpses in their quicklime, let us have from him some statement about that basis of Constitutional statesmanship upon which his glory as a future Governor of Ireland is to rest.
§ (11.0.) MR. A. J. BALFOURI confess to have listened to this Debate with feelings of considerable satisfaction, and even of complacency. This is the occasion on which all the pent-up wrath 1389 which gathers in the bosoms of hon. Gentlemen opposite is legitimately poured forth upon the Chief Secretary, whoever he may be. But to-night the particular allegations that have been brought against me have chiefly had reference to ancient wrongs. They are grievances that have been trotted out year after year, and Session after Session, and, as far as the 12 months are concerned which have elapsed since we last passed this Vote, very little that is new has been brought forward against the Irish Government. The hon. and learned Member for Longford has travelled over a wide field of Irish politics. He has discussed among other things the diminishing prosperity of Ireland under the present Administration. I think the discovery which he made is one confined entirely to himself. I have heard this subject discussed by persons of very different views—by politicians and statisticians; but never till this evening have I heard it suggested that during the last three years the wealth and the prosperity of every class in Ireland have done other than increase in a most remarkable and satisfactory manner. When I heard his amusing paradox I listened for the method by which he would sustain it. He said—
It is true that the imports into Ireland have doubled during the last three years, but, at the same time, the exports have diminished.But on what does the prosperity of Ireland depend? On what does the comfort of the people depend? Does it depend upon what they send to other people, or upon what they import for their own consumption? Has it not been agreed by all political economists for the last 30 years that their welfare depends upon the imports?
§ MR. T. M. HEALYI will give the right hon. Gentleman the figures of the Registrar General. During the period of five years from 1851 to 1855, just after the famine, the annual value in Ireland of the crops was £58,537, and of the stock £39,348, making a total of £97,885. In the five years 1884 to 1889 the annual value of the crops was £35,952, and of the stock £55,839, making a total of £91,791, or a decrease of £6,000.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURYes, Sir; but what has that to do with the argument which was addressed to the Committee based upon what the hon. 1390 and learned Gentleman said? I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's own argument. He said, "Your imports have increased; but what of that when your exports have diminished?" I say it is very important that the imports have increased to the extent which the hon. and learned Gentleman indicates. It is a conclusive proof—if proof were required of so obvious a fact—that the prosperity of Ireland during the last three or four years has greatly augmented. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks what is our policy—is it coercion and coercion alone? He says, "Where are your Railway Bills, your Drainage Bills, your Land Purchase Bill, and your Local Government Bill?" And the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to ask, in anxious tones, what he was to say to his constituents as to the good things given to them by the English Government. It would be a great impertinence on my part to suggest a speech to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is one of the most fluent and prolific of the orators who address the House. But I think I could give him the headings of such a speech. [An hon. MEMBER: Early marriages.] He might say, "The Government have brought in Drainage Bills for Ireland. I regret to say that your great rivers produce much damage in the districts where the floods occur. But the Drainage Bills were brought in by a Conservative Government, and we, therefore, were glad to accept the assistance of the English Radical Members in obstructing these Bills and in preventing them from becoming law. We admit the disasters that will consequently accrue to you, the population of Ireland, but your sufferings are in the cause of Home Rule, and you must bear them cheerfully." Then the hon. and learned Gentleman can say, "The Govern have also brought in a Bill for making railways in the poorer parts of Ireland. The Bill was framed in terms more liberal than any English Government have ever given to Ireland. We did our best to stop it; we did succeed in embarrassing the Government; but unfortunately they have been able to pass it. Unfortunately there seems every chance that the Government may be able to carry out these great and beneficial works in Ireland. They would benefit 1391 you, but you ought to regret that, because if the Bill had been rejected, and if the railway which they propose to give, and which you could never give yourselves, had not been built, the cause of Home Rule might have been furthered." The hon. and learned Gentleman may go on to say, "The Government have brought in a Bill for carrying out a policy which we advocated in earlier days—a policy of land purchase. They propose to give, in the first instance, a sum of £33,000,000 upon English credit, money which could never be raised upon Irish credit, and this sum, as it is repaid, will be re-lent, if Parliament desire it, to carry out that policy." "We all know," he may say, "that agrarian discontent is the very backbone of our policy in Ireland. This policy of land purchase may diminish that discontent, and therefore in the interests of Home Rule we have used the whole powers of our minority, a minority which rules the Gladstonian minority, and have been enabled triumphantly during the Session of 1890 to reject the Bill which, however beneficial to you and whatever peace it might have brought to Ireland, might have indefinitely postponed the consummation of your political wishes in the direction of Homo Rule." Now, it seems to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman might well make such a speech to his constituents as I have just sketched the outlines of.
§ MR. MACNEILLWhy do you not go and make it?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am not an Irish Member, and I have not to address an Irish constituency, but I was under the impression when I was interrupted that I was doing my best to supply the hon. and learned Member for Longford with materials for a speech to his constituents, a speech setting forth the views and desires anxiously expressed by him and his colleagues. Now, the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal denounced me this evening for, among other things, depending for the information I give to the House upon official sources. When a Minister is asked for information on particular matters he is bound to give official information, and if persons want information from other sources, say the daily Press, let them go to the daily Press for it. I do not wish to repeat the 1392 argument I used on Monday night; I wish to put the matters on a broader issue. Is there any real, any substantial difference between hon. Gentlemen opposite and us upon any of the leading facts of contemporary Irish politics? I admit, of course, that there are controversies as to whether a particular policeman did this or that, as to the treatment of this or that prisoner in gaol, and as to the sentences of this or that Resident Magistrate in cases of boycotting. But is there any substantial difference between hon. Members opposite and us upon the real and more important facts in Ireland? Is it denied, for instance, that the Plan of Campaign exists on many estates in Ireland, and that the plan is an illegal conspiracy?
§ An Irish MEMBER: That is a thing of the past.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt is very extraordinary that hon. Members opposite cannot control themselves and desist for a short time at least from interruption. I have no difficulty in controlling myself while hon. Members are speaking. I assert, then, that it cannot be said that there is any difference of opinion between us to the facts that the Plan of Campaign exists on certain estates in Ireland, and that it is an illegal conspiracy, that boycotting exists, and that boycotting is illegal, that intimidation exists and is illegal, and that meetings are called in Ireland which, by the common law of England as well as Ireland, are illegal. It is not denied that hon. Gentlemen are using what has been described as the land war to interfere with the rights of property in Ireland, property which its possessors hold by laws common to England, Ireland, and every civilised country. These facts cannot be denied. The only men who have been mentioned to-night as bad landlords in Ireland, or as; obnoxious to hon. Gentlemen opposite, are Mr. Olphert and Mr. Ponsonby. It is admitted that an illegal conspiracy exists on the estates of both these gentlemen. We do not differ, then, as to the fact that by these means—by these illegal conspiracies, by this illegal intimidation, by illegal boycotting—it is sought to carry out a political object in Ireland. It is admitted. Now, every man, English or Irish, has an absolute right to hold what views he pleases upon the subject of Home Rule. He has the right to advance those views 1393 by what means he pleases so long as they are legal means. But to attempt to advance those views by the illegal methods to which I have alluded is not and cannot be tolerated by this Government, and I believe could be tolerated by no civilised Government in the world. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down talked as if the present r°gime, as he described it, was going to end with this Government, whose demise he anticipates will occur at the next General Election. I take his hypothesis. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that the present Government comes to an end at the next General Election, and I ask whether the Government who are going to succeed them will tolerate illegal conspiracy? I ask whether they are going to tolerate the Plan of Campaign, whether they are going to tolerate boycotting and intimidation? Let the gentlemen who think they are going to succeed us at the next General Election get up and say that that is so. If it is not so, what right has the hon. and learned Gentleman to draw a distinction between the policy of this Government and a policy which he thinks will be pursued by our successors? So long as you mean to maintain civilisation in Ireland, under Home Rule or British rule, or any other rule, you will, whether you like it or not, be forced to carry out the policy of the present Government—a policy which is not yet, thank Heaven, a monopoly of the Conservative or Unionist Party, but is approved by every civilised country. And if he asks me what would be the epitaph written over the policy of this Government when our existence shall be brought to a summary termination, the answer I give him is this—"While we held office and power in Ireland we did our duty." We protected the weak; we defended the rights of every citizen; we saw, in so far as in us lay, that every man who desired to fulfil his lawful avocations should be allowed to fulfil them, in spite of the action of a political party, and the fact that we did so to the best of our power is the best epitaph that can be given us, and the only epitaph, so far as I am concerned, which I desire to have writen over the administration of the Conservative Government.
§ (11.22.) MR. DILLONWe have just listened to a speech which I 1394 venture to say will bring home to the mind and heart of every Nationalist in Ireland the feeling and the sense of the coming triumph of our case. The Chief Secretary has asked whether if the Liberal Party come into power they will1 tolerate boycotting and criminal conspiracy and intimidation in Ireland. I will answer that question, and I think I can answer it conclusively when I tell the Chief Secretary that on the day when the Liberal Party come back to power, the very advent of that Party into power will do what all the Coercion Acts of ten generations have not been able to do, namely, to exorcise from Ireland for ever the spirit of conspiracy of outrage and of crime. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he has protected the weak. Why, it was only a day or two ago since we heard a wail from the right hon. Gentleman that, notwithstanding all his police shadowing and despotism, intimidation rages triumphant in Tipperary. After four years of coercion in Ireland we have the hon. Member for South Tyrone standing up in the House this evening and appealing to the right hon. Gentleman to protect certain people in Tipperary from intimidation and boycotting.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI rise to order. I object to any discussion on my speech which I was not allowed to make.
§ MR. DILLONI congratulate the hon. Member, who has just perpetrated one of the finest of Irish bulls. What did the right hon. Gentleman say in the course of his eloquent peroration? He said their consolation would be when they were driven from office that they had done their duty in Ireland, and that they had endeavoured to protect the weak. But, Sir, it is we who have been endeavouring to protect the weak against frightful odds—against the armed forces of the Crown, prostituted by the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of a class who, with their ancestors, have been for generations the persecutors and oppressors of the weak in Ireland. Our organisation placed in the hands of a defenceless and helpless tenantry the means of resisting an intolerable oppression. The idea of protecting the weak entertained by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh is planting his foot on the neck of the people.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONI rise to order. I am sorry to interrupt the ton. Member, but I certainly have not expressed any such view.
§ MR. DILLONThe hon. Member's view is to wage war to the death with three-fourths of the people of Ireland. I maintain it is we who have the right to boast that we have protected the weak, and the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to-night will have the effect of making still more popular our organisation; for has not the Chief Secretary spoken of the landlords as the weak class, and has he not admitted that the policy of the Government has been to champion them? Now, the right hon. Gentleman is a very self-satisfied man, and I have no belief that anything we may say against the Government will have the slightest effect. I congratulate him on having a mind of that character, because it is a very necessary qualification for anyone who has to work the present system in Ireland, and I have always said that I do not think there could be a more ideal Chief Secretary than the present Chief Secretary. I think he has made the Irish Government more unpopular than all his predecessors have succeeded in doing. In this respect I feel a considerable debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman, because ho is playing our game in some ways in Ireland more effectually than we are playing it ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have a notion that we have no complaint to make against him. I have heard a good many complaints made against the right hon. Gentleman this evening, but I have noticed that whenever a case is made out against the right hon. Gentleman, and he is unable to dispose of it, he always says it is a matter of the most trifling importance. About a week ago, at the Crystal Palace, the right hon. Gentleman declared that the importance of the Licensing Clauses of the Local Taxation Bill was greatly exaggerated, and that, in his opinion, they constituted a matter of the most trifling importance. We may be permitted, I think, after the Barrow election, to hold a different view, and the Conservative Party throughout the country holds a different view. I now come to some of the complaints I have to make against the right hon. Gentleman. My first complaint is of the character 1396 and tone of the right hon. Gentleman's answers to the questions we put to him in this House. The right hon. Gentleman, when charged on this point the other day, said that if we did not like the tone and the nature of the information which he gave in his answers we had an easy remedy, and that was to abstain from asking questions. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) pointed out, we have an easier remedy than that, and this is to stay at home in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial side.] I am extremely obliged to hon. Gentlemen opposite for that cheer; but in 1886 when it was proposed that the Irish Members should stay in Ireland, in order to transact the business of their country, Member after Member of the Tory Party rose and said that they would never consent to it. I recommend this fact to the attention of the Committee and of the people of the country, that the Irish Members are now considered to be a nuisance, and out of place in this House; but that when it comes to be a question of going home to Ireland, and attending to the business of our country in Dublin, we are told that our presence in this House is necessary for the unity of the Empire. Do hon. Members opposite suppose that by dragging us from our homes, and then insulting us, they are contributing to the unity of the Empire? This statement of the Chief Secretary that if we do not like his answers we can refrain from asking questions is an excessively impertinent and insolent one. I go further, and say that it is utterly unworthy of a Minister responsible for the Government of a country like Ireland. Surely the Irish Members are entitled, as the Representatives of the people, to ask questions dealing with the administration of their country.
MR. A. J. BALEOURI do not wish to interrupt, but I was speaking not of the tone, but of the substance of my answers. The hon. Member surely knows that when a question is asked of a Minister the Minister, of course, gives the information which he obtains from official sources.
§ MR. DILLONI was coming to the question of the substance of his replies, and I think I shall show the House that in his speech just now the right hon. 1397 Gentleman absolutely and completely gave the go-by to all the complaints we have made in that regard. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there was any real, substantial difference as to contemporary facts in Ireland between him and the Members of the Opposition. A more extraordinary question has never been asked. The question rather ought to be, "Can you find any fact on which we agree?" The right hon. Gentleman says that the facts in regard to the contemporary state of Ireland are admitted on all hands, and then he plunged into a long string of statements of opinion. But we have not asked the right hon. Gentleman to state whether the Plan of Campaign is in force on estates in Ireland, whether boycotting is illegal, or whether intimidation prevails. Those are questions of opinion. The objections we have to the substance of his answers are to this effect, that when we bring forward statements of fact, involving certain conduct on the part of the police, the gross misconduct of Magistrates and other officials in Ireland, we receive false and misleading information in reply from the right hon. Gentleman. We have convicted him, over and over again, out of his own mouth, of making statements that were inaccurate. In reply, the right hon. Gentleman says he can do no more than give the official information placed in his hands. This seems to me to be the reductio ad absurdum of the whole process. In reply to a question incriminating a Magistrate in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman reads out, without inquiry or investigation, an answer concocted, perhaps, by the Magistrate himself, or by some of his subordinates. By this method of procedure the right hon. Gentleman declares to the country his incapacity to be at the head of an Administration like that of the Irish Government. Where a, serious charge is brought against the officials of a district in England no Minister would dare to burke that charge without some investigation. When an Irish Member charges an offence against some official in Ireland, giving all the particulars, the Chief Secretary telegraphs to the district where the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the official, or his comrade, sits down and invents any lie 1398 he likes, and the right hon. Gentleman reads it out to the House of Commons, and absolutely refuses to make any further inquiry. Take the case of Mitchelstown. When I brought forward that case, gave my own experience, and produced two English Members of Parliament to corroborate all I said, and several independent English visitors, besides several newspaper correspondents, the right hon. Gentleman read out to the House the account furnished by the Magistrate in charge, Captain Segrave, and deliberately refused an investigation. He then, and on a subsequent occasion, made himself the champion of Captain Segrave. What was the result? After some time we discovered Captain Segrave to be a man of a character so scandalous that the right hon. Gentleman himself was obliged to dismiss him.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Gentleman will forgive me. Captain Segrave was not on the spot during the riot.
§ MR. DILLONCaptain Segrave was in command on that occasion.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. Member accuses me of having given my account of what occurred at Mitchelstown on the authority of Captain Segrave. I did not. He ought to have been on the spot, but he was not.
§ MR. DILLONThe account was given on the authority of Captain Segrave and his comrades. Captain Segrave, I am informed, was on the spot before the shooting, and he was certainly on the spot immediately afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman, in the Mitchelstown Debate, and on subsequent occasions, championed Captain Segrave, who was afterwards proved to be a man who ought never to have been appointed to the magistracy, who was absolutely incompetent, and of a shockingly bad character.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt was not Captain Segrave's account that I gave. Of course, I gave the official information at my disposal, but my account was largely based on the account in the Freeman's Journal.
§ MR. DILLONI am perfectly content to leave that circumstance to the judgment of the Committee. Then there is another case—a charge of moonlighting was made against a constable, named Palmer, one of the 150 armed constables 1399 who are trying to keep order in Tipperary. One night Palmer left the barracks in a state of intoxication. He met some girls dancing round a bonfire, and, having grossly insulted them in the foulest manner, and struck two of them across the breast, came to the house of an old widow, and, after smashing every window, tried to burst in the door. Failing in that, he went to the next house and smashed some windows; but the owner of the house, who was a courageous man, jumped out of bed, and succeeded, with the assistance of his dog, in holding the constable till help came. The man was caught red-handed moonlighting. Surely if ever there was a case in which care ought to have been taken to bring the offender to justice this was one. But what was done? On the opening of the Inquiry before a Bench of Magistrates to-day, the District Inspector said that rather a long look would have to be made for Palmer, as he had a telegram from him stating that he had left Queenstown yesterday.
THE CHAIRMANAs this is a matter affecting the conduct of the police it should have been discussed on the Police Vote.
§ MR. DILLONI would point out, Sir, that it is not a question of the conduct of the police. It is a question of the conduct of the Executive Government. The man to whom I am referring is no longer a policeman, for he has been dismissed. The question is, Is he to be allowed to escape from justice because he has been a policeman? I charge the Executive with having allowed this man, caught red-handed in a felony, to escape from justice because he has been a policeman. Evidence was taken in the case, and the Magistrates, I suppose by way of a joke, inflicted a fine of £1. One of the things we have to complain of is that, when specific cases of violence by the police are brought before the right hon. Gentleman, he has always replied that the sufferers have a remedy at law. What remedy had the sufferers in the case to which I have just called attention? The police in Ireland are constantly violating the law, and the Executive systematically refuses to punish them, and when people seek a legal remedy the Executive places in the way every obstruction which a complicated legal machinery 1400 renders possible. I say this deliberately, that if the police in Ireland have committed a great many acts of violence their conduct is largely due to the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's answers to questions. The right hon. Gentleman says if we do not like the tone of his answers we had better not ask questions. I say we are entitled to ask questions, and we are entitled to get civil answers.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am sorry to interrupt, but I never attempted to discuss the tone of my answers. What I have referred to is the substance of them. For the tone of my answers I am, of course, responsible, and I have not made any excuses for it.
§ MR. DILLONWe complain of the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's answers. I think Gentlemen opposite will admit that the Government of the right hon. Gentleman is irritating in its character, and the tone of his answers aggravates the position. Hon. Members opposite affirm that the Irish Members in this House are on a footing with the English and Scotch Members. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes; that is your theory, but your practice does not accord with it. An Irish Member in this House does not obtain the same justice as an English or Scotch Member. We are met by the Chief Secretary with gibe and insult, and a tone and character of answer which is never adopted by any English Minister. I think this is cause for complaint. It is still more a cause for complaint when we see reflected in the tones and the acts of his subordinates the spirit he displays at that Table. I never feel the least difficulty in restraining myself when I am attacked by the right hon. Gentleman. But it is a totally different matter when we cross the Channel. The gibes and insults of the Chief Secretary in this House may irritate Borne of my Friends; but it is a totally different matter when they are translated, as they are in Ireland by his underlings, into the batons and bayonets of his police, and the short sentences and hard labour of his hireling and profligate Magistrates. With the honourable exception of a few men, who are not allowed to sit on Crimes Act Benches, there is not a Resident Magistrate in Ireland who does not read and study every word spoken by the right hon. Gentleman, 1401 and hence the insolent remarks and offensive tone of the right hon. Gentleman mean, to our people, additional suffering.
§ It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
§ Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.