§
1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £75,093, 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 1894, for the Salaries, Allowances, Expenses, and Pensions of various County Court Officers, of Divisional Commissioners, and of Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision.
§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)said, he had to move a reduction of the Vote by £1,000 in order to call attention 1298 to the appointment of a certain Revising Barrister. He would have been glad if the circumstances had allowed him to pass over the matter in silence, but he could not do that. At the outset he wished to do the Chief Secretary the justice of stating that he was not personally responsible for the appointment, although it was his duty, as the Representative of the Irish Government, to answer for it in that House, and to defend the Vote. The appointment in question was that of Mr. Wylie, as one of the Assistant Revising Barristers for the City of Londonderry, and he thought that the circumstances under which it had been made would astonish the Committee. The original appointments for these posts of Revising Barristers were two in number, and one was held by a Nationalist, and the other by a gentleman who happened to be a Conservative. He was not raising this question on account of Mr. Wylie's politics—and he wished that to be clearly understood—but what had happened since the original appointments were made. The gentleman who happened to be a Conservative had been removed to another district, and in his place Mr. Wylie had been appointed. But Mr. Wylie's position in connection with the City of Londonderry was so peculiar that if there was one city or borough in Ireland to preside over the Revision Court of which he ought not to have been selected it was this particular city, and it was surprising that he himself had not seen the invidiousness which attached to him on account of his previous political history in Londonderry. He was not only a well-known professor of Nationalist politics and an extreme Gladstonian, but he had been a representative of the Party in two political contests in adjoining counties, having stood first for North Armagh, and later on, in 1886, for North Tyrone. Apart from that, he occupied a position of a confidential character in connection with the Nationalist Party in Londonderry itself; for he was informed, on moat reliable authority, that Mr. Wylie was standing junior counsel on that circuit to Mr. O'Doherty, the solicitor to the Nationalist Party, and a former Member of the House of Commons. Apart altogether from his having been an active politician—a fact which alone ought to have been sufficient to prevent the higher Judicial 1299 Authorities in Ireland from making him a Revising Barrister in the Province of Ulster—he had acted as counsel before the Court of Appeal on revision cases from the City of Londonderry Court, in which he had been instructed by Mr. O'Doherty. Without desiring in any way to impute unfairness to Mr. Wylie, he must say it was unfortunate that in the City of Londonderry, where Party feeling ran so high—for it was one of the places in the North of Ireland in which Parties were so evenly balanced that first one side and then the other secured the seat by only a small majority—a gentleman who was so closely identified with one Party should have been selected, and should have been willing, to revise the voters' lists. Again, he wished to say he was not objecting to Mr. Wylie's appointment because he was a Nationalist. The Government were quite entitled to appoint any barrister who was, in their opinion, qualified for the position, no. matter how pronounced his political opinions; but it was, he believed, absolutely without precedent in this country to appoint a gentleman as Revising Barrister in a locality in which he had been an active candidate for political life. He was aware that Mr. Wylie was selected for appointment as a Revising Barrister by a previous Government, but on that occasion he was sent to another part of the country where his political opinions were a matter of indifference. But it was totally different in Londonderry. If, in the opinion of those by whom the arrangements were made, it was thought necessary to remove the Conservative barrister originally appointed to another Court, surely they should have exercised a wiser discretion in choosing his successor, for there were many strong Nationalists who were, no doubt, equally qualified, and to whom the same objections would not apply. He was bound to say that he had rarely met, in the course of the whole history of Irish administration, with a more wanton and flagrant violation of the principles of fair play than this appointment was. The right hon. Gentleman could not for one moment expect, if the Irish Government persisted in retaining Mr. Wylie in that Court, that any confidence would be felt in the proceedings of the Court. On 1300 these grounds he moved the reduction of the Vote.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £74,093, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Macartney.)
MR. J. MORLEYThe hon. Member declares this appointment to be one of the most wanton and flagrant cases of violation of the principles of fair play that he has ever come across in the whole history of Irish administration. He complains, in fact, that the proper authorities have sent to Derry as one of the Revising Barristers a gentleman of whom two things can be said—one true and the other untrue. The first allegation is that the appointment is most improper because Mr. Wylie was a candidate for the County of Armagh in 1885 and for North Tyrone in 1886. The hon. Member assumes that by reason of having been a candidate in a neighbouring constituency seven years ago Mr. Wylie is disqualified from being a Revising Barrister in Derry. Let us see to what that principle leads us. If a barrister had been a candidate in the County of Durham seven years ago, it would, according to the principle laid down by the hon. Member, be improper to now allow him to revise the lists in the City of Newcastle, in the adjoining county, and which is as hotly contested as the City of Derry. Let me carry it even further. Are the hon. Members for North Fermanagh and the City of Derry, who are both barristers, disqualified for being County Court Judges in an adjoining county because the County Court Judge is the superior revising authority in the district?
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, it would, in his opinion, be unwise and improper to send them as Revising Barristers to adjoining counties. He was not referring to the County Court Judges.
§ MR. MACARTNEYCertainly; but, then, he has the right to select his division, and I am certain that neither of my hon. and learned Friends would select one where Party conflict is great.
MR. J. MORLEYThe impracticability of the hon. Member's principle is illustrated by the cases to which I have ventured to refer. If the principle which 1301 the hon. Gentleman has laid down, and which he has enforced with such strong language, were carried to its legitimate issue, no appointment of the kind I have suggested could ever be made, as he says a County Court Judge has functions as a Revising Barrister.
§ MR. MACARTNEYBut he cannot become a candidate for Parliament.
MR. J. MORLEYNo doubt, when he becomes a County Court Judge, he rightly ceases to have a right to sit in this House. The hon. Member based his case against Mr. Wylie on a second allegation—namely, that the appointment was an improper one because Mr. Wylie had been a standing junior counsel to Mr. O'Doherty, the chief Liberal agent in. Derry, and that he had been instructed by him in cases of appeal from Revision Court decisions. I have taken great pains to ascertain the facts in this matter, and I am informed that this allegation is not true. In only one case did Mr. Wylie act as counsel on an appeal, and this was as far back as 1889.
§ MR. MACARTNEYHe appeared in two cases, which governed hundreds of other cases.
MR. J. MORLEYIt does not matter much whether it is one or two cases. I adhere to my statement; but I will call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that all these cases that come up for decision on appeal after revision hearings are cases in which points of law only are determined. Is, it to be supposed that a barrister who has argued on a point of law before an Appeal Court is precluded for ever afterwards from sitting in the Revision Court from which the appeal emanated? The hon. Member, who really does not know his own ground, said that such an appointment was without precedent. I will give the hon. Member a precedent. A certain Mr. Bates, a strong Conservative, was year after year—and not merely once or twice—a counsel in appeal cases from Northern constituencies, including West Belfast and Derry itself, in 1889; yet in a very important and critical revision in a Northern constituency, before the General Election of 1892, Mr. Bates was appointed Revising Barrister.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)He was appointed to North Tyrone.
MR. J. MORLEYAnd, therefore, if what has been said as to Mr. Wylie were true—and that I do not admit—we have the strong precedent set by the late Government, and moreover we are not now anticipating—as the Conservative Government anticipated—that the lists about to be revised will govern a General Election.
§ MR. MACARTNEYMr. Bates was never instructed by a solicitor to one of the parties in the district to which he was subsequently appointed.
MR. J. MORLEYI say that it is trifling with the time of the Committee and with common sense to argue that because a gentleman has been a candidate in a constituency and argued before an Appeal Court on points of law in 1889, this circumstance is to operate as a permanent disqualification for the performance of his official duties in the constituency in which the question he argued happens to have arisen. That is not all. I am told that the Warrant addressed to the Revising Barrister contains these words—
In future it must be understood that an Assistant Revising Barrister shall not accept fees to argue in a case reserved for the Court of Appeal by the Revising Barrister during the same Sessions in which he shall have acted as Revising Barrister.Surely if there is any sense in words, these give an indication that the Revising Barrister is at liberty in other periods to follow his profession. The hon. Member has not said a word against Mr. Wylie's qualifications as a Revising Barrister. He says, indeed, that he is a perfectly proper man to be appointed to such an office, but that he ought not to act in a Northern constituency because of his political partisanship. And that political partisanship consists in the fact that some years ago Mr. Wylie was a candidate for Parliamentary honours in two Northern constituencies. What an extraordinary view of the nature of political partisanship! The test is to be, then, a purely geographical one? A man who would be a violent partisan in a Northern constituency would, if sent out of Ulster, be entirely unprejudiced.
§ MR. MACARTNEYMy argument was that it was quite impossible for the voters who came before the Court to have confidence in the decisions of one who to their knowledge has, in past 1303 years, advised the agent to the Deny Nationalists. I say it is impossible but that his Court will be open to suspicion; and I further submit, that if the authorities chose to remove the Conservative Revising Barrister, they should have substituted for him some other gentleman against whom no such suspicion could arise.
MR. J. MORLEYHas the hon. Member made out a case against the appointment of Mr. Wylie? I say that he has not. Now let me add a word or two as to the fairness or otherwise of the appointments of Revising Barristers for the City of Derry. The hon. Member's argument was that this constituency, being a disputed place where the Parties are tolerably equally divided, where any partiality in revision might have a fatal effect, the Authorities are bound to be especially careful that the Revision Court shall not wear a Party colour. How was the Court constituted for the City of Derry in the revision of 1892? As constituted now, the Court contains a Recorder who is a Conservative, and who may send Mr. Wylie where he cannot do any mischief. What did the late Government do in 1892? Did they give the Nationalists one Revising Barrister? Not one. The Revision Court constituted by the late Government in 1892 did not contain a single Liberal or Nationalist, either for the City of Derry or for the county.
§ MR. DANE (Fermanagh, N.)I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, from personal knowledge, that he is misinformed on that point.
MR. J. MORLEYAt any rate, the Court for the City of Londonderry did not include a single Nationalist Revising Barrister. Then what becomes of the hon. Member's proposition that we have been guilty of a wanton and flagrant violation of the principle of fair play? It falls to the ground.
§ MR. DANEsaid, he greatly regretted that the good sense of Mr. Wylie did not induce him to decline the proposal to transfer him from the County of Meath to the City of Londonderry. The objections to such a transfer were urgent, and had the Government acted in a spirit of fair play they would have sent him to some other region in which the appointment would not have been looked upon as a gross piece of partisanship. 1304 Of course, no one objected to the exercise and display by Mr. Wylie of his political opinions, and no one took exception to the fact of his holding office as a Revising Barrister, whatever his political opinions were. No person would more gladly testify than he himself to Mr. Wylie's legal abilities. But those were not the grounds on which the Unionists of Derry objected to this appointment. The real objection was due to special circumstances which connected him with the City of Londonderry, and under those circumstances the appointment was little short of a public scandal. Mr. Wylie was fully entitled to his own political opinions. No one disputed that. But what was his history? In 1881 he was appointed a Commissioner under the Irish Land Act, and he discharged the duties of that office for several years. The appointment, how-I ever, was only of a temporary character; and when the falling-off in the number of cases rendered his services no longer necessary, he resigned his post. Next, he became a Parliamentary candidate for the County of Armagh. No one objected to that. A year later, in 1886, he was sent to North Tyrone, and his action there threw a strong light upon his views of political rectitude. In North Tyrone he for a considerable time discharged his duties as a Sub-Land Commissioner, and had to fix judicial rents, and that probably was the reason why he was sent to contest that constituency. It was not known whether he came forward as a Nationalist or as a Gladstonian; he never stated what his political position was; he never addressed a single meeting from a single platform, and the only thing he did was to place himself in the hands of the Roman Catholic clergy, and, the day before the election, to issue a placard—"Vote for Wylie and Free Bogs." Bearing in mind that in that particular division the question of free bogs had long been an element of discussion, and that he had sat there as a Sub-Land Commissioner, surely it was very questionable taste not to address a public meeting, but to simply appeal to the self-interests of the electors, and to try and secure votes in his capacity as an ex-Sub-Commissioner by promising "free bogs." But that was not all. In addition to his exploits as a candidate for Parliamentary honours, and as a Sub- 1305 Land Commissioner, he was standing junior counsel on the circuit to Mr. O'Doherty, the solicitor for the Nationalists of Londonderry, and on two occasions he appeared, as he was perfectly entitled to do, in the Appeal Court on revision appeals, on instructions from Mr. O'Doherty, on behalf of the Londonderry Nationalists. And yet this was the gentleman the Government sent down to revise the lists of the City of Londonderry, where the conflict between political Parties was so keen and the balance of strength so even. On these grounds the Unionists certainly had strong cause for complaint. Why was Mr. Wylie, who was so closely connected with Derry, transferred from Meath, to which he was originally appointed? Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that the strongest possible complaints came from County Meath last year, and was not a strong feeling excited in that county when it was made known that Mr. Wylie had again been appointed to revise the lists this year? This was a serious matter. However invidious it might be for one barrister to refer to the conduct of another barrister, he felt he would have failed in his duty to the Loyalists of the North of Ireland if he had not stated his honest opinion on this matter. Knowing that his views were the views of every liberal-minded and honest man, he would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, whose genial kindness and impartiality he and his friends readily recognised, that it was not too late even now to make a proper appointment, and he would remind him that no injury would be done to Mr. Wylie by sending him to another division with which he had not the same political connection as he had with the City of Derry.
§ MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)I confess I am a little surprised at the line taken by the Chief Secretary as to this question. If anyone had suggested to me that the right hon. Gentleman would have sanctioned a matter of this kind after it was brought before his notice, and after he had been made aware of the strong feeling that existed, I should certainly have declined to believe it. I would have said that the Chief Secretary would remedy it at once.
MR. J. MORLEYAlthough I am convinced the appointment is a proper 1306 one, I may just mention at this point that when the matter was brought to my notice there was no opportunity of making any change. If there is a strong feeling against the appointment, that would be an objection, but it was not brought under my notice.
§ MR. JACKSONThe right hon. Gentleman confirms my opinion that the Chief Secretary would have interfered if the matter had been brought to his notice at an earlier date. The hon. Member who has brought the matter forward casts no reflection on the ability or fairness of Mr. Wylie, but he objects on the ground of Mr. Wylie's connection with local politics. The fact was clear that they had living in the district the solicitor who employed Mr. Wylie as counsel, and Mr. O'Doherty would go before Mr. Wylie as Revising Barrister, with whom he had long been associated. If a similar state of affairs had existed in this country there would have been a great outcry, and very properly so. I should have been glad if the Chief Secretary had treated the matter in a more sympathetic spirit, having regard to the strong feeling in the district. Even the right hon. Gentleman's defence seems to emphasise the complaint, because he practically admits that if the case had been brought to his notice sooner there would have been ground for relegating Mr. Wylie to another district. This discussion and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has created in my mind a very uneasy feeling. His reference to the action of the late Government with regard to similar appointments does not seem to me to be to the point. There is, I repeat, no reflection upon Mr. Wylie on account of his politics, because we know perfectly well that a man who has twice been a Parliamentary candidate must necessarily have been associated not only with men in the divisions he fought, but also with local politics. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not put forward the argument that because we appointed men of particular politics there was any intention that they should exercise an improper influence in the districts to which they were sent as Revising Barristers.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said, he also wished it to be clearly understood that the objection to Mr. Wylie was not because of his Nationalist 1307 politics. That that was so the right hon. Gentleman might judge for himself from the fact that, although of the five Revising Barristers whom he had appointed or the County of Tyrone four were Nationalists and only one a Unionist, they had never uttered a word of complaint. He happened to know all the gentlemen appointed. They were accomplished lawyers, and he was perfectly certain that they would do their duty apart from politics. Even in regard to Derry itself, they did not complain because two Nationalists had been appointed. He was exceedingly sorry Mr. Wylie's name had had to be referred to, especially as he numbered among his personal friends two brothers of that gentleman. But the facts were perfectly clear, and they could not be ignored. The precedent cited by the Chief Secretary was no precedent at all, because Mr. Bates was not, like Mr. Wylie, a strong political partisan, and had never been, and he believed had no intention of becoming, a political candidate. Apart from registering his vote, he doubted if Mr. Bales had anything to do with politics. The right hon. Gentleman had asked what would be said if it were claimed that the hon. Members for North Fermanagh or Derry City could not be appointed County Court Judges because they had been politicians and Members of that House. Well, his reply was that while he would be glad to see such an appointment conferred on them, the Government would do a very wrong thing to appoint them to a district for which they had sat in Parliament. A necessary qualification for a Revising Barrister, apart from legal competency, was that he should command the confidence of those who had business at his Court; and was it not of cardinal interest that the man appointed to revise the lists, especially in Derry, which was so fiercely fought, where the margin was so close, and where the strongest feelings were aroused, should be above suspicion? There was a precedent for the Chief Secretary acting even now. In 1892 the Revising Barrister appointed to North Tyrone was changed to the City of Derry at the last moment, and, if he remembered aright, after the proceedings of the Registration Court had actually commenced. Therefore it was not too late for the Chief Secretary to undo the wrong which had been done, even though the right hon. 1308 Gentleman might not look upon it as a wrong.
§ MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)said, the suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Tyrone to the Chief Secretary was that an eminent legal gentleman, against whose ability and judicial impartiality neither he nor any of his Unionist friends had ventured to utter a word, was to be subject to public disparagement, and to the insult of removal from the office to which he had been appointed.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLIt would not be an insult.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that if after that Debate Mr. Wylie were removed, it would mean that the Chief Secretary had been intimidated into removing him, and the only theory would be that his judicial impartiality was not to be trusted. He should protest against any such gross public insult to Mr. Wylie, whom he did not know personally. The Unionist Party were growing exceedingly fastidious in regard to the matter. He would have thought that it was almost too delicate a, question for them to touch.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the gravamenof the case was that the Conservative barrister who was originally appointed had been removed at the last moment. Apparently, what was no insult to him was a deadly insult to Mr. Wylie.
§ MR. SEXTONconfessed that he could not understand all this fuss about the matter. If a Tory had been selected as-Revising Barrister, no closeness of connection with the city would, in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman who brought this matter forward, have been inconsistent with his retention of the office. It was said that Mr. Wylie ought not to have been appointed, because seven years ago he was candidate, not for Derry, but for a neighbouring county. He (Mr. Sexton) thought the Unionist Party would not act in accordance with its own interests if it laid down the rule that all men who had been Parliamentary candidates should be debarred seven years afterwards from becoming Revising Barristers. Then it was contended that some years ago Mr. Wylie appeared as counsel in one appeal respecting the revision of the Electors' Lists of the City of Derry. This was a most audacious argument for the Unionist Party to use, in view of the fact that Mr. Bates had been employed from year to year as 1309 standing counsel in the revision business of the City of Derry. Mr. Bates was appointed by the Unionist Government as Revising Barrister for the City of Derry in 1892 before the General Election.
§ MR. DANE (Fermanagh, N.)Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give the authority on which he makes that statement. It is without a particle of foundation.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the statement was perfectly true. The Law Reports had been consulted, and the name of Mr. Bates had been found in connection with Derry appeals. The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) said that because Mr. Wylie might have before him solicitors who had employed him in his professional capacity he ought not to act as Revising Barrister. Was it contended that the Government, in appointing Revising Barristers, must take care not to appoint them to any Court in which solicitors who had instructed them professionally might appear? In the West Belfast revision of 1892—the revision on which the General Election depended—he and his friends found themselves confronted with four barristers, two of whom were engaged on the Northern Circuit, and, having local relations with Belfast, had, no doubt, been professionally engaged by some of the solicitors who appeared before them. For the whole revision of 1892, 32 Revising Barristers were appointed in Ireland, and of these only four were not Unionists. The four were sent to constituencies where the revision was of no account, because the majority was overwhelming, and, therefore, the peculiar skill of the Revising Barrister could not possibly be applied to any Party purpose. In the Northern constituencies of Ireland, at least six Tories of the North of Ireland acted as Revising Barristers. A scandalous attack had been made upon Mr. Wylie, and he trusted that the Chief Secretary would give no ear to the suggestion that that gentleman should be exposed to a public insult.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has been unlucky. I have no authentic information on the point, but I have some reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to exercise his patronage in such a way that no 1310 complaint should be made by any Party in this House. I am only sorry that in this case the immense trouble and annoyance which these questions of patronage necessarily involve should have brought' upon him a considerable amount of difficulty and perplexity. All the information I have with respect to this particular case I have derived from the speeches to which I have just listened; but I think the right hon. Gentleman would do well to consider whether he ought not, even at the eleventh hour, to take the course suggested by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. T. W. Russell)? What is the objection to that course? The only objection yet stated is that Mr. Wylie, being a gentleman of ability and impartiality, could not be removed from Derry without conspicuous insult, and something amounting to a stain on his character. The right hon. Gentleman says that would be especially and necessarily the case after the Debate in this House. But surely the very course of this Debate proves conclusively that it carries with it no insult to Mr. Wylie. Every gentleman who has spoken against Mr. Wylie's appointment has shown that he is animated with no hostility to Mr. Wylie, but believes him to be gifted with the qualifications which would make him a most admirable Revising Barrister in any district in Ireland which did not have a special connection with the City of Derry. I confess that if it would be an insult to remove him the insult bears a meaning which it has never borne before. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down brought forward certain statements with regard to what passed in 1892 just before the General Election, and said the Party to which I belong acted in a most improper manner. He went so far as to say that of the very few Nationalists appointed as Revising Barristers not one was appointed in any doubtful constituency. I admit that there are doubts about the facts, and that no reference has been made to documents to verify the facts; but it has been suggested to me that Mr. dimming, who is a Nationalist, was Revising Barrister at Derry.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI may say it is not the case that all Revising Barristers for Derry were Unionists.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWell, if the case is as I have stated, down drops the 1311 whole fabric of allegation made by the ton. Gentleman.
§ MR. SEXTONMr. Bates, who had been employed in revision business in Deny, revised Derry in 1892.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIf my suggestion is correct, the late Government did appoint a Nationalist to carry out the work of revision in one of the most critical constituencies. The hon. Gentleman says Mr. Bates was occupied in appeal business before his appointment as Revising Barrister; but the hon. and learned Member for Fermanagh (Mr. Dane), who is engaged in work in that district, has alleged in the strongest manner that such is not the case.
§ MR. SEXTONI should like to hear what the hon. and learned Member does say.
§ MR. DANEI asked the hon. Gentleman what authority he had for his statement, because of my own knowledge I do not believe that Mr. Bates is anything of the kind.
§ MR. SEXTONMy reply is that the Reports have been examined, and Mr. Bates's name is found in them.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI thought that my hon. Friend's statement was more positive; but, even as it stands at present, it appears to be of a more authentic character than the surmise which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) indulged in with regard to the Revising Barristers in Belfast, when he said he had no doubt it was their practice to take briefs from the solicitors who were engaged in election matters in that city.
§ MR. SEXTONI know that of these four barristers two were on the Northern Circuit, and I should be prepared to say that if they were offered briefs they would not refuse them.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have not the least doubt they would be prepared to take them if they were offered, but the point that requires further investigation is whether they were ever offered. The hon. Gentleman attached very great importance to the alleged misdemeanors of the Conservative Government just before the General Election of 1892, and said that what happened now was of very little importance, as no legislation was to take place during the course of the coming year. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having informed us what the intentions 1312 of his Government are on that point, but these things are not always determined by the Government. Accidents do occur, and unforeseen events transpire. However, the chief gravamen of the attack made upon Mr. Wylie is not that he has been retained in the Court of Appeal which deals with some of these election cases; the gravamen of the charge is that he has been an active politician in the neighbourhood of Derry all his life; that he has been connected for many years by close professional ties with the gentlemen who appear before him in election cases, and that he has been asked his opinion on the various points that have arisen in Derry in connection with election cases. That is of incomparably greater importance, if it were true, than the fact that he appeared on some question of law in Dublin. I would advise the Chief Secretary that he should even now make some alteration with reference to the gentleman who is appointed to deal with revision in Derry. This advice is based not upon any belief in the incompetence of this gentleman, still less on any belief in his unfairness, but on a principle the value of which everyone will recognise—namely, that the Revising Barrister should not only be fair, but that he should be known by those on whose cases he adjudicates to be fair—possibly an ideal which cannot always be obtained. I do not wish to infuse into this Debate the controversial element which the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Sexton) and gentlemen opposite have dragged into it. The hon. Member for Kerry said we desire to have a Tory barrister in Derry for the purpose of increasing the majority which now exists. That amiable suggestion has been backed up by the cheers of other Members. I am glad to think that my hon. Friend who started this Debate showed more judgment, better taste, and more fairness than the hon. Member for Kerry and those who cheered him. We do not bandy such charges across the floor of the House. We have never suggested that the result of appointing Mr. Wylie will be that any Unionist voter will be struck off the list who ought to remain on it. We do not suggest that, because, fortunately, we have not sunk to the controversial depths of the hon. Member for Kerry. What we do say is, that where the majority is so small that it rests in the power of the 1313 tribunal to decide whether the city should return a Unionist or a Nationalist it is most important to have a tribunal against which no charge can be made. The charge we make is not that there will be any unfairness, but simply that the connection of Mr. Wylie with the district in which his Court is situated, and his relations with one political Party, are such that those who have not the honour of his personal acquaintance, or a knowledge of his ability, which his friends in this House gladly recognise, may, perhaps, put a construction on Mr. Wylie's actions which may be not only injurious to that gentleman, but injurious to the cause of justice.
§ MR. SEXTONWith reference to the observation of the right hon. Gentleman that part of my case was broken to pieces by the fact that Mr. Cumming, a Nationalist, was appointed by the Tory Government to revise the lists in Derry, I am informed that the Tory Government, before leaving Office, appointed a Unionist to revise in Derry, and that Mr. Cumming was appointed by the Liberals after the Unionists had gone out of Office.
§ MR. DIAMOND (Monaghan, N.)said, the practice that had always prevailed in Ireland was for the Government that was in power to appoint its own friends to do the work of revision. He believed it was only a pretence to say that the objections to Mr. Wylie's appointment were not based on political grounds, and he thought it came with a bad grace from gentlemen who had administered a Coercion Act in Ireland to speak about getting impartial men to carry out the law.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLinquired on what ground it was resolved at the last moment to remove Mr. Carew from his position as Revising Barrister, and also to move Mr. Wylie from Meath to Derry?
§ MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) that there should be fair play all round, but he (Mr. Morton) could say, from recent knowledge, that the Roman Catholics at Londonderry had hardly ever been treated fairly or on an equality with the Protestant population either as regards registration or anything else.
§ SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)said, it seemed to him that neither the Leader of the Opposition 1314 (Mr. A. J. Balfour) nor the Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley), with the best intentions, had ever been able to appoint gentlemen as Revising Barristers in Ire-land who were not objected to by somebody or other. In England, where the impartiality of Revising Barristers he had never heard called in question, they were appointed by the Judges who happened to go to the Assize just before the revision took place. Would it not be possible to introduce into Ireland a similar system, and to place the appointments in the hands either of the Judges, or of somebody in Ireland whose impartiality would never be questioned?
§ MR. J. MORLEY, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that if neither the Leader of the Opposition nor himself had given satisfaction in making these appointments he doubted whether the Irish Judges would be any more successful.
§ SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.)said, that during the time of the revision there would be great lack of confidence in Derry in Mr. Wylie's impartiality. He held in his hand a list of the Revising Barristers appointed in the three touchy counties in Ulster—Fermanagh, Derry, and Tyrone—and it was a remarkable thing that out of 11 Revising Barristers appointed in the three counties where there were touchy Unionist seats only one was a Unionist.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ 2. £732,249, to complete the sum for Constabulary, Ireland.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, this Vote would not require to be debated from the usual standpoint. Those Irish Members who on that (the Ministerial) side of the House were challenging the Votes had not been in collision with the Royal Irish Constabulary. They had not been arrested.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that they had no complaints to make against individual members of that most excellent Force. But there were points to which he wished to call the attention of the Chief Secretary, with a view to having matters explained and cleared up, and not in any way in a bitter or controversial spirit. The first was as to the action of the Constabulary in the town of 1315 Cloughjordan, in County Tipperary. He had asked several questions earlier in the Session regarding some boycotting which he understood had gone on there, and the right hon. Gentleman had said that the Constabulary of the district denied all knowledge of such a thing. He (Mr. Russell) had produced a Memorial signed by a number of residents in the district giving the exact cases of boycotting, and the people who had suffered from it. He remembered that the Prime Minister took part in the Debate, and said it was a legitimate subject for inquiry. The Chief Secretary concurred, and there was reason to believe that he had made inquiry—that he had sent down a special officer for the purpose, whose Report, unless he was mistaken, rather told against the Constabulary view of the thing, and confirmed the view of the townspeople of Cloughjordan. He (Mr. Russell) would be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could give him some information on the matter, and could tell him that the boycotting had now altogether ceased. There was another question of importance on which he should like some information. He had received somewhere about 10 letters from different parts of County Tyrone, some outside his constituency and some within it, pointing out a rather singular thing which had taken place in regard to the movement of the police. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would tell him if there were any Rules regulating the distribution of the Force—any Rules decreeing that the Protestant Constabulary should be in one quarter and the Roman Catholic in another. He was informed that of late Protestant constables had been removed from places where there had never been anything else but Protestants, and where the vast majority of the inhabitants were Protestants, Roman Catholics being put in their places. Was there any rule to be observed in these matters, and how were they to account for the extraordinary movement which had been going on in Tyrone? A third point was as to the removal of Head Constable O'Halloran from County Clare. He had been informed by those who knew County Clare that a more efficient officer never performed duty in that county. He was a man who had been once removed from County Clare, but who had been sent 1316 back on account of the exigencies of the situation. First of all the County Inspector was removed, and then the Head Constable, who had an exceptionally good knowledge of the county. He did not dispute the right of the Government to remove officials of that kind, but he wanted to put this question pointedly to the Chief Secretary—Was the Head Constable removed by Sir Andrew Reid, the Chief Inspector of Police in Dublin, in the ordinary course, or was political pressure brought to bear upon the Irish Office in order to bring about the removal of those men? The fourth and last point he had to mention was one which would, perhaps, have more sympathy from the Chief Secretary than anything he had referred to. He wished to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the systematic neglect of the Sunday Closing Act by the Royal Irish Constabulary.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who interrupted him had commenced as a Sunday closer. He had supported the Irish Sunday Closing Act.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the hon. and gallant Member was mistaken. He would be astonished to learn that on one occasion he had sat up all night to vote for the Irish Sunday Closing Bill. His point was that there was something like systematic neglect of the Sunday Closing Act in many districts by the Royal Irish Constabulary. This was a very serious matter. A great many people in Ireland felt the matter very keenly, and attached quite as much importance to it as Members attached to many political matters. It arose out of the bonâ fide traveller clause—or what the police and the Magistrates conceived to be the bonâ. fide traveller provision—of that Act. The general opinion in police circles was that if a man travelled three miles he was then entitled to have a drink as a bonâ fide traveller. ["Hear, hear!"] Some hon. Members opposite concurred in that view. All he wished to tell them was that it was not the law which had been laid down by the highest Court. The law said in regard to the jaded traveller that after he had travelled three miles 1317 he should be in a position to obtain refreshment whether he was a bonâ fide traveller or not. This question had given a great deal of trouble in Wales, and the same idea was prevalent in the Principality as had got into the brains of a lot of muddle-headed Magistrates in Ireland. Take the village of Rathfarnham, three miles from the City of Dublin. The public-houses were closed there on Sunday. In the forenoon, when public-houses in Dublin were closed, the Dublin thirsty people went out to Rathfarnham and became bonâ fide travellers.
§ An hon. MEMBER: Where should they go?
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLThen they came back to Dublin in the afternoon, when the Dublin public-houses were open. [Laughter.] This was very amusing, no doubt. He was astonished to find a lot of Sunday closers amused by it. At the same time, it was a question which required the attention of the police, and the attention of the police could only be secured by representations from the authorities to the effect that a man was not a bonâ fide traveller who travelled for drink. The law was that a man might drink to enable himself to travel. The evil that was taking place at Rathfarnham was occurring all over Ireland, and the success of the Act was being seriously marred by it. He hoped the Chief Secretary would consider the subject worthy of his attention.
COLONEL NOLANsaid, he had had considerable experience of the Sunday Closing Act. He usually spent the whole of his time when the House was not sitting amongst his constituents. He was sometimes on the Bench, and he heard, of course, all the local gossip, and he was in a position to say that the Royal Irish Constabulary not only discharged their duty in regard to the Sunday Closing Act with efficiency, but might almost be said to make themselves a perfect nuisance in the matter. The district he lived in was very quiet. They were very well-behaved people there. The Royal Irish Constabulary in the district were very plentiful, and they had very little to do, and, as a consequence, they were always bothering the unfortunate publicans in every way. He found, as a Magistrate, that the charges brought against the publicans were rarely capable 1318 of proof. It was said, indeed, that in order to have something to do the Constabulary sometimes manufactured cases against the publicans. With regard to his own action, to which the hon. Member had alluded, he had had no experience of the matter when the Sunday Closing Bill was passed. On that Bill there were 43 Divisions, but, so far as he could remember, he had only voted three times on it—twice for the measure and once against it. His experience of the Act was that it created crime. People were constantly getting into trouble through it, and it created law where there would otherwise be no law. He was very much inclined to think that if the same Bill came before them again he should vote always against it; at any rate, if he voted both ways, it would be twice against it and once for it. If his constituents were to express a very strong opinion on the subject he should be inclined to vote always against the Bill.
MR. J. MORLEYI must say that it is a good many years since the Constabulary Votes have been discussed in such a genial spirit. I think that the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken represents the view taken in Ireland of the Sunday Closing Act much more correctly than the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who talks of systematic neglect on the part of the Constabulary. This very morning I received two official Papers, in which it was stated that two constables or sergeants had made themselves unpopular by their activity in respect of this particular class of people So far from it being the fact, as alleged by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), that the Royal Irish Constabulary have been guilty of systematic neglect in regard to the operation of the Sunday Closing Act, they have displayed a vigilant attitude in this matter, and they will be encouraged to persist in that vigilant attitude. The hon. Member cannot expect me to go into the question of bonâ fide travellers, which is a very vexed question, both in England and Ireland. The hon. Member referred to the boycotting at Cloughjordan, in County Tipperary, and complained that the Local Police Authorities have denied the existence of the state of facts which he brought forward in this House. I, when I saw the Memorial which the hon. Member for 1319 South Tyrone received, at once directed an officer to proceed to Cloughjordan and report upon the state of facts in that locality. The point which has been made in this House is that the matter arose out of an eviction, and afterwards assumed a religious complexion. The Report of the police is that that is not so, but that it was much more a case of trade dispute and trade jealousy. Cloughjordan is rather a miserable place, with an excessive number of traders, and the intense competition amongst these traders fastened itself on a dispute about a farm, and gave rise to a good deal of disturbance and trouble. I am glad to say, however, that though there is still some feeling about the evicted farm, so far as active disturbance is concerned, it has certainly to a great extent subsided. The Report of the special officer, whom I sent to Cloughjordan, does not contradict in any way the Reports of the Local Police Authorities, but it brings new facts to light, which the Local Police Authorities had not already noticed. The hon. Member next asked me whether there is any rule regulating the removal of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary from a theological or ecclesiastical point of view, and he referred to what he described as a recent movement in Tyrone—namely, the substitution of Catholic sergeants for Protestant sergeants in places where Protestant sergeants had been stationed. All I can say is that whatever movements have taken place have been by direction of the Inspector General without any directions from me, or from any authority outside the Constabulary Force itself, and I have no doubt that the Inspector General is incapable of setting on foot the sinister movement which has been described by the hon. Member. There is no rule with respect to the distribution of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary on religious grounds. The hon. Member next questioned me with regard to the removal of County Inspector Fleming and Head Constable O'Halloran from County Clare, and he wished to know whether their removal was due to pressure brought to bear upon the Irish Office from political Parties. The change was not made in deference to any representation whatever from politicians. The hon. Member will easily understand that when we found 1320 the state of the County Clare not growing better, but growing worse, it was natural that it should be thought worth while to try whether a change of officers occupying important and responsible posts would not effect some good. County Inspector Fleming is a very efficient officer, but everbody will agree that the six months' police administration preceding this change was not so strikingly successful that it was not worth while trying a change in the personal elements of police administration at headquarters. Without throwing the slightest slur on either of the officers mentioned—who have been removed to posts quite as good as the old ones—I considered that the experiment was worth trying.
§ SIR T. LEAsaid, he was very glad to hear that the movements of police officers in Ulster possessed no political significance. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had not expressed himself very clearly in regard to the administration of the Sunday Closing Act. They found that in most of the districts where the Sunday Closing Act existed the Act was well administered. The only difficulty was the question of the bonâ fide traveller, and a Select Committee had recommended as a means of removing that difficulty the raising of the limit from three miles to six miles. That change was embodied in the Bill which he and his friends were trying to pass through the House. He had next to advert to the action of the police in ordering the Derry publicans to take down the Union Jacks which they were flying in honour of the visit of the Marquess of Salisbury. The Chief Secretary had said, when the matter was first brought before the House, that the Head Constable had acted in an excess of zeal; but he thought that neither the law on the subject nor its administration was satisfactory. He found that the police in other parts of Ireland raised no difficulties about other flags than the Union Jack flying over public-houses. During the recent tour of the Lord Lieutenant the Member for the County of Sligo, who was a publican in Sligo, did his Excellency the honour to fly, not the Union Jack, but a flag with the words "God save Ireland" over his public-house. He did not object to the action of the hon. Member for Sligo; but he thought it was certainly a slur on our national 1321 honour that a Derry publican should be ordered to take down the Union Jack, while a Sligo publican was allowed without remonstrance to fly a flag bearing the words "God save Ireland." The law which prohibited the flying of political flags over public-houses was directed against the machinations of secret societies, and he did not in the least condemn it; but he thought it should be made clear that the police should not order the taking down of the Union Jack when it floated over any house. When the matter was last before the House the hon. Member for North Louth wanted to know whether one flag was not as good as another, and the Chief Secretary signified assent. Did the right hon. Gentleman really consider that the Union Jack was on the same level as any other flag? All patriotic men objected to such a statement, and it was objected to in particular in the North of Ireland, where a great jealousy of the status of the Union Jack existed.
§ MR. SEXTONI cannot wonder that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who has very arduous and responsible duties to perform, should look very well pleased tonight. I confirm the testimony of the hon. Baronet opposite that, during the late Government and other Governments in my time, the Vote for the Irish Constabulary has been the occasion of one or two, even three, evenings of a contentious, violent, and animated Debate. But how wonderful is the change! I think it is one of the most remarkable and one of the most magical results of the administration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that this Vote is this evening even the occasion for such good-humoured, and what I may call comic, debate, because the Debate has certainly been one of the most humorous and farcical during the course of my period in the House. The hon. Baronet has nothing better to do than to press upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland the great Constitutional question of pulling down the Union Jack from some public-houses in Derry. He seemed to think that a slur had been cast on the national honour; but I think the national honour and the national flag will survive the slur. I fail to understand what he means when he says that he has discovered some sort of connection between 1322 the floating of flags over public-houses and the spread of secret societies. The hon. Member must think that Irishmen are very stupid; because, surely, if they were to set about establishing secret societies they would not commence by putting up flags over public-houses. Now, I wish to direct particular attention to one item in the Vote—the Appropriations in Aid. Although the amount for Appropriations in Aid has fallen off £10,000 since last year, still it remains at £46,000. It is gratifying, so far, that the right hon. Gentleman in one year should have been able to make such a reduction. But if I remember rightly, in the height of coercion, when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was in power, the charge for extra police never went beyond £60,000 a year; and though it has now fallen to £46,000, yet I say that is a very disappointing figure. There has been a substantial decrease of serious crime all over Ireland. Then there have been congratulatory Charges by all the Judges at the late Assizes in respect of all the counties except two or three—indeed, I think I might say in respect of all Ireland, because except in one district on the borders of Cork and Limerick there has been no serious crime; and, therefore, I am surprised that this charge has not undergone a greater diminution. £46,000 a year is too high a figure to be levied on a people perfectly orderly and peaceable for extra police in addition to the ordinary force. I think at present I can do no more than to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this matter, because I am sure he is as anxious as I am that the charge should be reduced as far as is compatible with efficient administration, and I will express the hope that we shall find the figure considerably reduced in the Estimate for next year which the right hon. Gentleman will have to draw up. I am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition in his place, for I think he will probably agree with me that the cost of this Force might be greatly reduced if we were to revive Clause 13 of the Land Purchase Act of 1891, about which there was some conversation last night. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the fact of tenants being evicted, of the existence of vacant farms, and the fact that the evicted tenants frequently 1323 live in the neighbourhood of those vacant farms, is connected with the keeping of some of those extra police. Since the discussion that took place last evening I read a report of a meeting held in Cork, at which a resolution was passed strongly urging the Government to renew Clause 13. One gentleman at that meeting said he was aware from positive knowledge that Clause 13 of the Act would have been much more extensively utilised if the period allowed—six months—had been longer, and this gentleman admitted that in his own case he had actually entered into negotiations with his landlord, and the documents were drawn up; that owing to some informality in the forms they had to be prepared again; but before they were ready the period had expired. I have no doubt that other cases of that kind exist in Ireland, and I have no doubt there are a large number in which landlords and tenants would be willing to come to terms. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that he should inquire from the heads of the Police Departments in Ireland whether, in their judgment, good order would not be further promoted by the revival of this clause, which, I think, would lead to a considerable number of negotiations being entered upon; and, in conclusion, I would express the hope that the Leader of the Opposition would make some such declaration as would lead the Chief Secretary for Ireland to introduce a Bill for the revival of this clause, and enable it to be proceeded with as a non-contentious measure.
§ MR. BARTONthought that it should be borne in mind that the decrease in the cost of extra police was, in some degree, due to the fact that the political opponents of the present Government did not use their influence to have the administration of the law obstructed in Ireland. The late Government had to deal with the resolute, determined, and declared determination of their political opponents to render the task of governing Ireland not only difficult, but impossible. There were still more police in Ireland than there ought to be, and that was because there still remained that open sore of the evicted tenants which no one could deny was the direct consequence of the organised action of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in 1324 opposition to the late Government. The present Chief Secretary had no action of this kind to meet from his political opponents. He assured the Chief Secretary that, unlike the treatment given to the Leader of the Opposition, the political opponents of the Government, whether in Ulster or elsewhere in Ireland, would do nothing to make his task more difficult. But he rose more especially to suggest that there was some irregularity in the Police Returns of Outrages which required correction. He quite accepted the Chief Secretary's statement that he had made no alteration in the classification of offences, but undoubtedly there was a difference in the recent Returns presented at the Clonmel and Kilkenny Assizes. In one case the destruction of property, which the police believed was done by the owners for purposes of fraud, was not included in the list, while in the other case an offence of a similar character was included in the Return of Outrages. Undoubtedly there was a mistake there, and he was strongly of opinion that even when property was destroyed for fraudulent purposes it should still be returned as an outrage, as undoubtedly it was, and certainly it was as serious as when committed from' malicious motives. Again, he did not think that it should depend on the opinion formed by the police as to the motive of an outrage to have it included in the Return. A case occurred at the last Assizes in which the police did not return a particular outrage because they believed it was fraudulent and not malicious; but when the matter was investigated by the Grand Jury they came to the conclusion that it was malicious and not fraudulent, and they awarded compensation. The result was that the outrage never appeared on the Official Returns, for it was too late for the Return of that Assize, and it could not be included in the Return for the following Assize. He hope the Chief Secretary would give this matter his consideration.
§ MR. DANEagreed that outrages, whether committed for fraudulent or malicious motives, should be included in the Police Returns. In relation to the question of hoisting flags over licensed houses, he suggested that the Chief Secretary should consult with the Inspector General of Constabulary with a 1325 view to framing a rule which would guide the police in their action. Of course, the old Statute prohibited the flags, under a penalty, but it could not, and should not, be the intention to discourage the use of the national flag. The law, such as it was, was not evenly and fairly administered. Last month, at Wexford, on the occasion of a Sunday Roman Catholic procession, a publican exhibited the Stars and Stripes, and was not ordered to remove it. Some rule was required which would be a guide to the police in the matter. He was sure that if the Chief Secretary and the Inspector General of Constabulary put their heads together they would be able to devise such a rule.
MR. J. MORLEYWith regard to the exhibition of Party flags over public-houses, the police have their instructions laid down for them by law, which they are bound to follow, and I cannot entertain the idea of myself and the Inspector General putting our heads together to prepare rules by which the police may evade the law.
§ MR. DANEThe right hon. Gentleman himself said that, so far as the exhibition of the Union Jack was concerned, he would be no party to allowing the police to interfere.
MR. J. MORLEYI do not think I used language of that kind. With regard to the Union Jack, I think each individual case should be left to the discretion and tact of the police; but it is quite another matter to counsel them to break the law; and it certainly is not within the cognisance of my Office. With regard to the classification of outrages, the hon. Member for Armagh referred to a discrepancy in the practice which came out at Clonmel and Kilkenny Assizes. But it appeared afterwards that the action of the County Inspector in the Clonmel case was according to custom in classifying outrages for the purpose of presentation to Judges of Assize. I have said several times—and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has expressed the same view—that the principles upon which classification is carried out are not all that could be wished. But although I am not quite satisfied with the present system, there are great difficulties in the way of a change, the principal one being that the change might destroy the 1326 value of these statistics for the purposes of comparison in future years. If all parties can agree on a satisfactory plan I will not object, but then we would not have the power to institute those comparisons in which some of us revel or do not revel, as the case may be. My hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry has expressed his regret that there has not been a still further reduction in the figure respecting the contributions from localities for the Constabulary Force. Well, I fully share my hon. Friend's regret; but I think my hon. Friend will see that when the present Government came into Office and undertook the task of governing Ireland without exceptional laws, but governing Ireland solely by the existing law, it was their duty to be not less careful, but much more careful and vigilant in preventing and, if possible, in detecting crime. My hon. Friend will easily see that that was an indispensable element in our policy, and that accounts for the reduction in the extra police force not having been more rapid than it has. But, as the condition of things is not getting worse, but better, we shall be still more in earnest, and shall feel that we are walking on still surer ground in endeavouring to reduce the figure to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. My hon. Friend was perfectly right in saying that the greatest cause for the slow rate at which the extra police are being reduced was the question of the evicted tenants. That is the sore which every Government has to deal with, and we entirely agree that its existence is the greatest of the administrative difficulties that now confront the Irish Government, and will possibly confront them for some time to come. But as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has not seen his way to communicate to us his final views of this difficult question I do not propose to add anything to what I have said.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI should not like this Vote, with which, in other days, I was extremely familiar, to pass without one word, at all events, of congratulation to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I began the few remarks I made on the last Vote by saying he was unlucky. I have to begin my remarks now by saying that he has been extremely lucky; and if, as has been suggested, he has been given a very 1327 small amount of trouble over the Constabulary Vote, then he has enjoyed a fate which does not often come to us in this world. He has received a very rapid and good reward for his good works. I have nothing to urge against the general government of Ireland by the right hon. Gentleman. I gather, however, that subjects which occupied so much attention in former years still exist—that evictions take place; that resistance to evictions is not unknown; that public meetings have to be dispersed, and that a great many other things which occurred in the past still occur, and may still be made the texts of prolonged and envenomed criticism. I concur with the right hon. Gentleman that without legislation he is absolutely powerless to lay down any regulations which should modify the existing law with regard to the display of flags, and believe that the right hon. Gentleman and the police have at present no choice but to act in the matter as they have done. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Barton) has pointed out an obvious leak in the present method of collecting information for the list of offences placed before the Judges of Assize, and I think some plan might be adopted to stop that leakage. I was astonished to hear what the hon. and gallant Member for Galway said with regard to Sunday closing, because the evidence given before the Select Committee showed that every class in Ireland were in favour of that measure. I think the Chief Secretary has acted wisely in not hastily and rashly diminishing the number of police. The position of things has greatly improved. He has told us—and I am quite willing to accept that statement—that the reason why a certain class, obnoxious to the community in which they live, are permitted to carry out their industry in safety is that there is such a body of police, and there lives are so carefully watched that it would be a matter of considerable difficulty and danger to exercise upon them any of those lawless forms of revenge which have played such a prominent part in Irish history in the past. The moral that the hon. Member for North Kerry drew was that if the evicted tenants were removed agrarian crime would be diminished to such an extent that the extra police might be very much reduced, or wholly removed. I think 1328 there is great force in that observation; but I am afraid that so long as the relation of landlord and tenant exists there will be evictions, and so long as there are evictions there will be vacant farms, and the tenants who take them will not always be popular in the districts in which they live. Therefore, do not let us be so sanguine as to suppose that even if the evicted tenants are reinstated to-morrow the agrarian difficulty in Ireland will be settled. A very considerable step, however, would be taken to remove one of the gravest diseases from which Ireland suffers if the existing class of evicted tenants could in whole or in part be restored to their holdings. With that object in view a clause was inserted in the Land Act of 1891, under which it was possible for landlords and tenants to come to arrangements with regard to their holdings under favourable circumstances. The operation of that clause was limited to six months, and it has been alleged by the hon. Member for North Kerry that that period is too short. I have a very high opinion of the amount of delay which lawyers can introduce into transactions in which they are concerned; but I still think that if the evicted tenants had set themselves seriously to work as soon as the six months began there would have been no difficulty whatever in arrangements being come to over the whole of Ireland. The question now is, shall we or shall we not bring in a new Bill to renew for a limited period the same arrangements that were embodied in the clause of the Act of 1891? I certainly do not wish to speak in an unsympathetic or hostile manner of that proposal. I think it is quite possible that circumstances might arise under which that might be the best course to pursue. But when I am asked to give my opinion upon the subject, I must point out to the Committee that I am not a Member of the Government responsible for the Government legislation; it is only fair for the Government to tell me, first, what their scheme for dealing with the whole question is. I will be perfectly frank with the House, and will say what I think ought to be done. But to ask me, when I do not and cannot know the facts, to give blindfolded some estimate of the position is to ask me to do what no Leader of the Opposition has ever been asked to do before. We have had sug- 1329 gestions and hints that the Government have in contemplation a scheme for dealing with this difficulty. Far be it from me to pronounce upon that scheme before I see it; but to ask me to run a policy of my own parallel to that scheme is to ask me to take up a position which I might find embarrassing and which nobody else would find useful. I do not suppose the Government contemplate in the present Session telling us their views upon this important subject, and I do not press them to do so. But when they do tell us, I shall be very glad indeed to lay before the House or the Committee my view upon the question. In the meanwhile, I can only say that I think still, as I thought in 1891, that the clause we then introduced was fair to all parties, was liberal to all parties, could cause no complaint, and would not be even a just cause of objection to the British taxpayer, who is the principal and perhaps the only person whose interests could be in any way involved.
§ Vote agreed to.