THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY,referring to the answer of the noble Earl the President of the Council upon his (the Marquess of Normanby's) Motion the other evening for the production of the Correspondence which had taken place between the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Home Government in reference to the Galway Subsidy, said, that answer had received in Ireland an interpretation different to that which the noble Earl, doubtless, intended should be applied to it. This was obvious from the observations made on the last occasion by his noble Friend, connected with the Company of Galway (Earl of Clancarty). The fact of the case was that when a deputation of noblemen and gentlemen waited upon the Lord Lieutenant in reference to the expediency of continuing the subsidy, his Excellency gave them a distinct pledge that Her Majesty's Government should be fully informed of all the points which they urged. But when he (the Marquess of Normanby) moved for the Correspondence which he supposed the Lord Lieutenant entered into with Her Majesty's Government in pursuance of that pledge, the 1161 noble Earl (Earl Granville) denied that there was any such official correspondence in existence, whereupon he (the Marquess of Normanby) expressed his regret that his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had not thought it consistent with his duty to make to Her Majesty's Government an official representation upon the subject, as, from experience, he knew that such was the most convenient and most satisfactory course to adopt. It was not necessary when, as in his own case, there was almost daily confidential correspondence with the Prime Minister, his late friend, Lord Melbourne, with whom he never had a difference of opinion upon any Irish subject. But he also knew that the most important despatches in reference to Irish policy were those which the late Marquess of Wellesley, while Lord Lieutenant, addressed to the Secretary of State when there was, he would not say a difference, but the shadow of a difference, between himself and the Ministers with reference to the policy to be pursued in that country. It was not his practice to allude to what took place elsewhere, but on the present occasion he felt called upon to do so in consequence of the new principle for the government of Ireland enunciated in a recent debate by one of the Ministers of the Crown himself, the Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant.
§ EARL GRANVILLErose to order. He did not see how the matter referred to by the noble Marquess could in any way be taken as fixing the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he did not pledge himself to the precise expressions used by the Chief Secretary; but the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister of the Crown, and any expression coining from him would limit the functions of the Lord Lieutenant who was his official superior. The right hon. Gentleman was understood to make a declaration to the effect that it was not considered desirable that the Lord Lieutenant should express any opinion upon the subject of the subsidy in question—a declaration the more extraordinary as being made after it was publicly known that a deputation, consisting of gentlemen of all parties in that country, had waited upon his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the matter, and that he had told them that that was not the first time he had had the matter brought under his consideration, and that he had not waited until 1162 then to inform Her Majesty's Government of his opinions and sympathy in reference to it. From his own experience, he (the Marquess of Normanby) must say that if that was the footing upon which the Lord Lieutenant was to be placed it would be impossible for him to efficiently discharge the duties of his responsible office, and the sooner the office was abolished the better. Of all questions, this was certainly the one on which the Government ought to have consulted the Lord Lieutenant. No doubt it was not a purely Irish question; but the object of the Lord Lieutenant's office was to endeavour to cement Irish interests with Imperial policy; and if the doctrine of the Secretary of Ireland prevailed, very few noble Lords would be found in the future willing to undertake the duties of Lord Lieutenant. He would not now enter farther into that question than to say, that when the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, some years since, was preparing a Bill for the abolition of the office, he wrote to Paris to consult him (the Marquess of Normanby) upon the policy of the proposal, when he replied that it would be impossible on account of the numberless changes which it would occasion to carry the measure through as they proposed, but that he farther thought that till the two countries were in many respects more nearly assimilated, nothing could compensate for the advantage which the office of Lord Lieutenant secured of having always present throughout the year a statesman of weight and influence to be consulted on all Irish interests. He wished to know whether the noble Earl adhered to the statement that no official communications had passed between the Government and the Lord Lieutenant with reference to the Galway contract?
§ EARL GRANVILLEwished to remind the noble Marquess of the answer he had given the other evening. In reply to a Motion then made by the noble Marquess, for the Correspondence which had passed between the Lord Lieutenant and the Government on the subject of the Galway subsidy, he (Earl Granville) stated that there was no official correspondence on the subject. No doubt communications had passed between members of the Government and the Lord Lieutenant; but there were no official communications which could be produced to Parliament. He did not know whether the expressions said to have been used by the Chief Secretary in "another place" were correctly given; but if any 1163 importance attached to them, it was most irregular and inconvenient to bring them under the notice of their Lordships in the way the noble Marquess had done. He had, however, not the slightest hesitation in saying that the Government were in constant communication with the Lord Lieutenant, and that they received with great confidence and deference his opinion on all subjects connected with the general policy of Ireland. Very likely the Secretary for Ireland stated in the other House that it was not considered necessary by the Government to consult the Lord Lieutenant in regard to the Galway contract. The question was whether a contract with a Government department, the stipulations of which had not been fulfilled, should be terminated, and that was an Imperial question, and not one to be referred to the Lord Lieutenant. He was informed by his noble Friend the Postmaster General (Lord Stanley of Alderley) that it had never been the practice and had never been thought necessary to communicate with the Irish Government on matters connected with the management of the Irish Post Office. In this instance it would have been placing the Lord Lieutenant in an unfair position, to call upon him for an official communication which might perhaps have rendered him unpopular in Ireland. Such a course would have been very injudicious. He could not believe that the object of the noble Marquess was to sow dissension between the Lord Lieutenant and the Government, or between the Lord Lieutenant and his Secretary, though coming from another person such an intention might have been presumed from the remarks which had been made. He could only say that they were now, he believed, on the best terms, and, no doubt, the wish of the noble Marquess was that those cordial relations should continue.
THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, that on a question of such great public interest, affecting as it did the industry of Ireland, the opinions of the Lord Lieutenant ought not to have been thrown aside and passed over as having no bearing on the question, as they appeared to have been by the Government; for he could not otherwise understand how the noble Earl should have said, when the noble Marquess on a former occasion asked for the production of this Correspondence, that there were no official papers on the subject. He admitted that the question was of Imperial importance—for whatever affected the interests of Ireland affected 1164 the interests of the whole kingdom; but that was an additional reason why the Lord Lieutenant should have been consulted on the discontinuance of the subsidy, as his predecessor had been consulted on its establishment. It appeared that when a deputation waited upon the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin on the subject, the noble Earl could only express his sympathy with those who addressed him, and promised to place their views before the Government. To state after this that there was no official correspondence was, in his opinion, to lower the position of the Lord Lieutenant in the eyes of the Irish people, besides subjecting to a severe strain the philosophy and forbearance of the noble Earl himself.
THE EARL OF LEIRIMsaid, he was not surprised that the noble Earl should have said that the production of the Correspondence would be very inconvenient—
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had not stated that the production of the Correspondence would be inconvenient; he said that there was none of a public nature.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMhad certainly understood the noble Lord to say so. It appeared that an extraordinary line was drawn between official and non-official correspondence. He supposed the distinction was, that if the Lord Lieutenant, instead of beginning his letter with "My Lord," began "My dear Lord," "My dear Lord" held that correspondence to be private and confidential, though it might be of vital importance to the whole empire. He deprecated this system, arid he deprecated the imputation that the noble Marquess had brought forward this Motion with the object of producing discord among the Members of the Cabinet. If report spoke true there was enough of discord there already. In trying to avoid the production of the correspondence, the noble Earl had endeavoured to mislead the House. He had stated that the whole question was, whether a Company that had failed to perform its contract should continue to receive a subsidy. This he denied. The question was whether Galway should be a packet station or not, and it was indifferent whether the contract was held by one Company or another. It had been said of a former Irish Government that the Lord Lieutenant did all the dancing, the Chief Secretary all the hunting, and the Under Secretary all the correspondence. It was high time to consider how far the Irish Government should be reformed. Was it to be the only thing in the United Kingdom that was not to be 1165 reformed? The whole thing was a paradox. The Chief Secretary was a member of the Cabinet, and had to attend to his Parliamentary duties; the Lord Lieutenant remained in Dublin to perform all the popular demonstrations; but he was only nominally the head of the Government—he was no more than the channel of communication between the English Ministry and the authorities of Ireland. Step by step they were taking all power and authority out of the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. They had made him, in fact, a mere electioneering agent. Even now, after the important debates that had taken place on the question, a Minister in the Crown could state that the whole question was whether a Company that had failed in its contract should continue to receive a subsidy. This was not a fair way of putting the question. The question was whether the people of Ireland were to have any benefit from the Union or not—whether Ireland was to be treated as part of the United Kingdom or as a colony?
§ LORD PORTMANrose to order. He protested against the noble Earl addressing their Lordships when there was no Question before them. Such a course was attended with great inconvenience to the public service.
LORD BROUGHAMHow does the noble Lord know that the noble Earl on the cross benches does not mean to conclude with a Motion for the repeal of the Union?