asked the Postmaster General, If he is aware that the building of the new Exeter Post Office has not yet been commenced, although the site thereof was purchased last May; and, if he can explain the cause of this delay; if he is aware that the time necessary for the completion of the building is estimated at three years; if he is aware that during that term a considerable sum of money will have to be expended on temporary improvements to the present building, in consequence of the increased work likely to arise through contemplated Departmental changes; and, if the Post Office are satisfied that the new site is large enough to warrant the belief that no complaints of insufficient accommodation are likely to arise in future?

, in reply, said, that the first plan drawn up for the new Post Office had been found not to provide sufficient accommodation. In consequence it had been necessary to prepare a revised plan, which was now under the consideration of the First Commissioner of Works. He could assure his hon. Friend that he had been careful to satisfy himself that the revised plan would provide sufficient accommodation. There would be as little delay as possible in building the new Post Office; and he did not anticipate that much expense would be incurred in making a temporary enlargement of the old Post Office.

rose to call attention to, the Extraordinary Naval, Military, and Police Expenditure which is being incurred in Ireland; and to move for a Return of all sums chargeable on the Estimates connected with the attempt to preserve Life and Property in that country. The noble Earl said, he did not intend to make any attack on the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The Government had given them, and were about to give them, so many opportunities of discussing the affairs of Ireland that he thought it was unnecessary for him to delay the Votes in Supply by raising an Irish discussion. But, at the same time, he considered it was most important that the country should be informed of the expense to which it had been put, and it was for this reason that he ventured to interpose between the House and Supply. With the view of laying a foundation for his Motion, and not from any purpose of attacking the Government, he wished to point out to the House that the outrages in Ireland, which, unfortunately, had for a long time been going on in that country, had been increasing from the month of May, 1880, down to the present time, until, after the year and a-half or two years that had elapsed, they had reached the enormous number of 6,668. Now, in order to meet this disastrous state of affairs it had been necessary to largely increase the Forces of the Crown; and he had endeavoured to ascertain what was the comparative number of the Army in Ireland in 1880 and at the present time. The result was that he found that in February, 1880, there were 16,540 troops of all arms in Ireland; now there were no less than 34,469, or considerably more than double the previous number. In addition to them there had been movements of Her Majesty's ships, involving a considerable expenditure; and there had also been a large increase of the Royal Constabulary, he believed, to the extent of from something like 11,000 men to 13,000 or 15,000; also, of course, involving a considerable charge. Now, all these charges for troops, and ships, and police, engaged in the enforcement of the coercive policy of the Government came out of the Consolidated Fund; so that the people of the United Kingdom—the people of England and Scotland, as well as the Irish themselves—had to contribute towards the cost, although the people of England and Scotland—unless it was imagined that the Government were, to some extent, responsible, and that they had returned the present Ministry to power—were in no way responsible for the large increase of expenditure. He thought, therefore, they should know accurately what the expenses of the operations in Ireland really were, and that they should be separated from the bulk of the other items under the same head in the Estimates, and that they should have laid before them a full statement of the charges which had thus been incurred. Those charges included the pay of the 17,000 men who had been added to the normal number of the Army, their allowances, rations, car-hire, railway fares, all the expenses incident to the constant movement of a considerable body of troops, the immense wear and tear of the material, and the cost of the ammunition expended. But it was not only under the head of the outrages which appeared in the Return lately laid on the Table that that large expenditure had been incurred. For a long time back it had been impossible in numerous cases to enforce the action of the law without the aid of extraordinary means, and those extraordinary means all entailed additional cost. He might quote many instances of that kind; but he would take one or two as samples to show what was the exact point that he wished to have made clear, and the precise species of charges as to which he sought information. At a place called Edenderry, a case occurred in which it was necessary to recover a judgment for one year's rent by seizure. The amount of the rent was £101. The civil charges for recovering that amount of rent, including the solicitors', sheriffs', bailiffs', and other charges, was £20 13s. 1d. To recover a sum of £121 and some odd shillings, and to enforce the seizure, a force was sent consisting of 35 men and one officer of the 47th. Regiment, 28 men of the Irish Constabulary, and a Resident Magistrate. Thus, in order to get payment of £121, the country had been put to expense for the pay of that force of troops and constabulary. [An hon. MEMBER: Not for the pay.] An officer's allowance was 15s. per diem. Then there were items for soldiers' billets, cars, a cart, and other things, making, exclusive of the pay of the men, to which objection had been taken, the total cost to the country of £53 10s. In another instance a party of Hussars, 35 men and three officers, were sent, and, after a few days of obstruction of a different character to that which the House was accustomed, the population rose to defeat the execution of the law. Trees were cut down and thrown across the road, bridges were broken down, roads were torn up, and every impediment was put in the way of the party, upon which additional troops were sent down, consisting of 120 men of the Rifle Brigade, 15 of the Royal Engineers, 30 of the Irish Constabulary, and a Resident Magistrate, and that force was on the ground 13 or 14 days. What was the expense of moving considerable bodies of men and keeping them in the country away from their stations? This had been going on for the last two or three years all over Ireland, and the cost of cars alone, in the particular instance he had quoted, was stated to have been £60 per week. He did not desire to trespass upon the patience of the House; but he desired the Government to lay upon the Table a distinct statement, so that they could all comprehend what was the difference between the ordinary expenditure and that which had been made necessary by the movement of these bodies of troops and of ships, by the increase and constant employment of the Royal Constabulary. The country would then be aware what it was that Englishmen and Scotchmen had to pay for the satisfaction of enjoying the blessed privilege of Liberal rule as shown forth in Ireland.

intervened at this early stage of the debate, not with the view of speaking on the general question, but because he thought it might be as well that he should state, in reply to the noble Lord, what had been the increase of military expenditure caused by the condition of affairs in Ireland. The extraordinary exaggerations which had appeared in the Press, and, he was sorry to say, in "another place," when at one time the strength of the military force in Ireland was stated, on the highest authority among those who were not Members of the Government, at 61,000 men, and similar statements which had been made elsewhere during the last few weeks, required that some authentic statement should be made on tins subject. He would, therefore, at once give an accurate statement of the number of troops generally stationed in Ireland, and also the present number. The average strength of the forces of all arms—Cavalry, Infantry, Artillery, Engineers, and other corps—since the year 1872 was above 22,000 men. It had been in some years as high as 24,000 or 26,000 men, and as low as 21,000, and he might put the average at 22,000, or perhaps 23,000. At the time when the Government came into Office the establishment was somewhat below its normal strength, in consequence of a good many regiments having been recently abroad; but it then, nevertheless, exceeded 20,000 men, and during the last few months it had averaged from 28,000 to 29,000, so that the excess above the average amounted to about 7,000, including a battalion of Marines about 940 strong. The highest number of troops which the present Government had maintained in Ireland was 30,040 men, the number now there. That was very different from the enormous figures of 60,000 and 61,000 men, which had been stated on authority, but the ground of which he had in vain endeavoured to ascertain.

asked what was the number of troops when the Government came into Office?

It was a little below the average in consequence of the reasons I have given, not being more than 20,460. With respect to the increased cost of the Army in Ireland during this financial year, it was extremely difficult to be accurate, because it was spread over a great number of items which did not reach the War Office for many months, and then had to be carefully analyzed; but he had seen that day the two officials of the War Office most able to give a good opinion as to these expenses, and had gone carefully into them. They had neither increased or decreased the garrison of the United Kingdom; so that the Vote for Pay was not increased. But there had been entailed on the Government certain extra expenditure in connection with transport, billetting, and special allowances; and, after the most careful inquiry, he thought he might state that, at the outside, the increased charge for the year would not exceed £30,000, and he should not wonder if it turned out to be as low as £25,000. But £30,000 was the fullest charge for 1881–2. He hoped he had answered the Question of the noble Lord. That £30,000 they had been enabled to find out of casual savings on ordinary Votes, and they would not be compelled to come to Parliament for any Supplementary Vote on that account. With regard to the Navy, there were three items of principal expenditure as to which no Vote would be asked for from Parliament, they having also been met out of the amount saved from the aggregate Estimates. There would be a small charge on account of the Marines of £6,000 or so. The charge for transport would be probably about £5,000, and there would be some extra cost in connection with the coaling of gunboats and other vessels on the coast of Ireland. No additional vessel, however, had been put in commission, and the total additional charge on account of the Navy would not exceed £20,000. Thus he was able to inform the House that from the best means of information which they possessed at the present time the total special charges for the Army and Navy in connection with the recent movements in Ireland would probably be under £50,000, the whole of which would be met out of the ordinary Votes of Parliament.

expressed his satisfaction at the statement of the Secretary of State for War. He agreed with the noble Lord that their extraordinary expenditure on account of Ireland ought properly to be brought under the notice of Parliament. He considered it was one of those services of expenditure which, unless the House very carefully investigated it, was very likely to become a very serious charge upon the Exchequer. He gathered from the noble Lord's statement that he considered the Government were, in an especial degree, responsible for this expenditure. He himself did not believe that if a Conservative Government had been in power it would have been placed at any possible advantage in the government of Ireland, although he admitted that the country had to pay very large charges, which must be deplored. He would like to know what the noble Lord wished. Did he wish that the Government should not incur any police charge to assist in the collection of rents in Ireland? He sympathized, to some extent, with what appeared to be the feeling of the noble Lord, that where landowners had, by the course which they had taken for generations in Ireland, exacted from tenants rents in excess of what could justly be paid, the people of this country ought not to be placed under heavy charges for the use of the police and other powers in enforcing the payment of those rents. They might suppose that the great difficulty the Government experienced arose from the fact that the rents in Ireland had been very largely in excess of just rents; and the misfortune of the case was that a very large amount of the arrears which now existed were arrears of rent which had accumulated in consequence of the tenants having been required from year to year to pay larger sums than they were able. If a tenant paid £100 a-year rental, that £100 represented £25 a-year more than the amount the tenant would justly have been called upon to pay. If during the last 10 years he had paid his rent with tolerable regularity, he must have overpaid rent to the extent of £250. He might be two years in arrears and owe the landlord £200, and they were called upon to put the whole engine of the State into operation in order to make these tenants pay their arrears of rack rent. He hoped the Government would give the Return asked for, because the country wanted to see what it was paying in order to enforce the rights of the landlords in Ireland. He altogether deplored the fact that they were spending these enormous sums on police action in Ireland. He was delighted to find that the military expenditure was so much less than the public had been led to expect from the number of soldiers required in Ireland. There could be no doubt whatever that they were paying a very large additional sum and an increasing sum in police charges. He had always had these feelings, and he ventured to state it in the debate on the Address 12 months ago. He had always had the fear that by giving extraordinary powers to the Government, Dublin Castle would not be fully disposed to put in force the ordinary powers of the Government. He had seen increasing crime and increasing outrage, the whole state of society disarranged, and he had seen that during the whole period that this dreadful state of affairs existed the police seemed to have been incapable. In reference to the ordinary powers of Government, the police and Dublin Castle officials had, to a great extent, failed. They heard of outrages and frightful murders; but they almost always saw the statement appended that there was no clue to the perpetrators. The police did not track and get hold of the criminals. All they could do was to seize some farmer who had nothing to do with any outrage, and put him in prison as a "suspect." He hoped the discussion in that House upon those Votes would induce greater energy on the part of the authorities of Ireland to carry out the power rested in them under the ordinary law. He trusted they would trust more to ordinary law and less to extraordinary powers in putting down these outrages. At all events, the country had a right to know the cost; and he thought they ought fairly to look at the case with a view to prevent any lavish or undue expenditure without attaining the desired result.

said, that last year a new system of accounts was adopted, with the approval of the Public Accounts Committee, under which the Army and Navy Departments had power given to them to spend, in addition to "Appropriations in Aid," certain sums, known as "Extra Receipts," which were formerly paid into the Exchequer. He wished to know whether the new scheme had come into force, and whether these "Extra Receipts" had been appropriated; and, if so, whether that did not account for the fact that no further sums would be required?

said, the change did not take effect until the 1st of April next, so that no use could be made of these sums.

wished he could believe that the state of things was of that couleur de rose complexion which the right hon. Gentlemen had depicted. He thought that a portion of the expenditure incurred in Ireland must have come under some other heads than those with which the right hon. Gentleman had to deal. What did the moving about of the police cost?

said, he had nothing to do with the police.

said, he was aware of that; but, practically, the police and the military were employed together. Wherever the police went, a force of military accompanied them to protect them. Although the large sum of £28,000 was set down in the Estimates for the travelling expenses of the Irish Constabulary, it was now necessary to ask for £32,000, including such items as car hire, train fare, mileage allowance, marching money, &c.; so that the whole cost amounted to the gross sum of £60,000 odd. Besides that, there was an item for transport service, which consisted of the purchase of horses, cars, harness, forage, livery, &c, and which amounted to £14,174. Under these circumstances, it was extraordinary that the cost of moving about the soldiers should be only £30,000. He wished to know the cost of maintaining the extra regiments in Ireland? It was obvious that if they had put 10,000 extra troops in Ireland, if Ireland were peaceable they could reduce the strength of the forces by that amount.

said, he did not think that the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to the Question of the noble Lord would be satisfactory either to the House or the country. The right hon. Gentleman put the whole increase of cost this year down at £50,000; but what they wanted to ascertain was how much was the cost this year for the troops now in Ireland, and how much it had been in former years?

said, that there were 7,000 additional troops in Ireland; but then, of course, there were 7,000 less in Great Britain.

said, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) came into Office there were 20,400 soldiers in Ireland, and there were now upwards of 30,000, and only a very short time ago five fresh regiments were sent to Ireland. There were two regiments sent, one from Gosport and another from Portsmouth, and two battalions of Guards; and he thought there was another regiment sent from Dover—the 31st Regiment—to Ireland. ["Three regiments!"] He understood there were five fresh battalions sent about a month or six weeks ago. He might ask, if Ireland was so quiet as the Government represented it to be, why these extra regiments were sent over there? Was it a fact or not that there was in Ireland a regiment whose average of service was not over 10 months, that the troops could not be trusted to do duty, and therefore a regiment with older men was required to take its place? He understood that while the Secretary of State for War was getting rid of the old soldiers out of every regiment, he had to ask for more troops from this country, because the age of the men in Ireland rendered them unfit for the work they had to perform. It was particularly important now, when the short-service system was actually on its trial, and when they ought to know everything with regard to that system, and where it appeared to fail, and had not carried out the object of the Secretary of State for War, that the House should have an explicit statement whether what he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had stated was true or not. He would, therefore, again urge that the right hon. Gentleman, in any Returns that might be made, would state the ages of the men serving in Ireland, the average length of time which they had served, and whether it was a fact that there were one or more regiments in that country whose actual service was not more than 10 months?

said, he would like to hear the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite on the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) to reduce the Army by 10,000 men. The fact was, that they were obliged to keep on foot a certain military establishment to meet emergencies that might arise abroad; and it did not make any material difference whether the regiments of which it consisted were distributed about England and Scotland, or were sent to Ireland. It was unnecessary for him, he thought, to say anything further as to Army and Navy expenditure. With respect to Civil expenditure, he could but reiterate what had been stated by his right hon. Friend, that it was at present impossible to give an accurate Return of that special expenditure until the close of the financial year, because the Government had not the materials for doing so. If the noble Earl (Earl Percy) referred to the original Estimates of last year, he would see that the only item relating to Ireland showing any material increase was the Vote for the Constabulary. That Vote showed an increase over the average of the last six years of about £ 12,000 a-year. It would appear that the increase on the original Estimates amounted to about £59,000, of which about £12,000 was repayable by the counties for extra forces supplied, giving an increase of a little less than £40,000. He was sorry to say that in the Estimates which they would shortly have to consider, there would be a further provision necessary of £116,000. A small portion of that would be repayable by the counties; but he thought it would be a perfectly fair Estimate to set down the total increase in the cost of the Constabulary, owing to the present condition of Ireland, at nearly £140,000. To that they might add the increased charge of Resident Magistrates, £5,000; Law Charges, £19,000; Chief Secretary's Office, £900. To this also they might add the expenses of the Land Act, which was intended to remove the permanent causes which led to the present state of Ireland, and that might be put at £35,000. Adding all the sums together, they came to about £200,000 of Civil expenditure occasioned by the present state of Ireland.

said, he did not think that the answer of the Government would be complete unless they stated what was the whole difference in the Expenditure caused by the present state of things in Ireland. Parliament should look at its Expenditure with great jealousy. He was not much inclined to compliment the Secretary of State for War on the complacency with which he had spoken of the connection of his Department with the state of Ireland. When, as was the case this year, the total Army Estimates were £16,500,000, it would be an extraordinary thing if the transport of a few regiments to Ireland could not be carried out without an extra charge coming upon the Estimates. He wished to point out that during the present Parliament the National Expenditure had been enormous, and now amounted to £85,000,000.

, referring to the question of putting down outrages in Ireland, observed that in India some time ago the Natives had a bad habit of getting upon the railway trucks when in motion, and rolling off some of the bales of cotton and stealing them. The Government of India stopped this practice very quickly by fining every Native within a certain distance of the place where each offence was committed. Why could not the same policy be carried out in Ireland? He had heard it suggested by some persons, though he did not suggest it himself, that the outrages might be stopped with the greatest ease by hanging the three nearest priests. He did not advocate that system; but, at the same time, everyone knew that every person within a certain distance of the place where an outrage was committed knew well enough who had committed the crime. There was an old saying, "that the receiver was worse than the thief;'' and if the inhabitants around a certain district knew who the offenders were and did not interfere, he maintained that they were just as bad as the offenders themselves, and worthy of every punishment. If the Government would adopt the system of making every householder within a certain distance of the place where an outrage was committed pay, according to his rating, a certain sum for each offence, every man would be turned into a sort of special constable, and a stop would soon be put to the outrages.

said, he had listened with some attention and interest to the recital of the experiences of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken. A short time ago The Pioneer, a leading newspaper in India, expressed its great regret that amongst a very large portion of the population of India their existed a feeling of absolute loathing against English officials. It was very probable that if the hon. and gallant Member was an English official in India, they had some clue to the cause of the feeling he (Mr. O'Donnell) had mentioned. He did not think, however, that it would at all tend to exalt the dignity of that House or of the country to devote too much attention to the observations of the hon. and gallant Member. There was a feature in this debate to which he had listened with some pleasure, and that feature was supplied in the observations of some hon. Members sitting on the opposite side of the House. Though he was not in the habit of complimenting hon. Members opposite on their attachment to liberty, he certainly heard with very great pleasure the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), who appeared on that occasion to have indulged in a lucid interval, and to have raised his voice on behalf of the principles of humanity, of which he was so distinguished an exponent under the late Cabinet. That hon. Member, in referring to the expenses of the military occupation of Ireland, laid great stress upon the fact that those expenses were largely required to extort from the peasantry the hopeless arrears of unreduced rents which lay upon the country since the Famine period. He (Mr. O'Donnell) did not expect that his views would have the slightest weight with Her Majesty's Government; but he did trust that expressions of such true and sturdy supporters of the Government as the hon.-Member for Burnley would have some weight with the Government. The thing which was depriving the Land Act of all chance of success, which was driving the people into desperation, and causing the Estimates to mount up, was the mass of arrears of unreduced rents. It was perfectly useless to expect people to go into the Land Court; it was perfectly hopeless to expect any diminution of the present necessity for a military occupation of Ireland, so long as, at least, 100,000 of the Irish tenants remained burdened with arrears of rent which could be legally extorted from them, but who were utterly unable to pay. He was not sure that a great deal of what had been done by Her Majesty's Government in Ireland might not require to be condoned under a Bill of Indemnity. He was sure there was no Bill of Indemnity which would be so readily passed by the majority of that House as one pardoning and absolving the Government if they refused to grant military assistance for the extortion of arrears of rent, except in cases where it was clearly proved to them that a fair and just offer had been made by the landlord to the tenant before the landlord's application for the military assistance. The military might be demanded, say, by Mr. Bence Jones, for the extortion of arrears of rent which, in the Land Court, might be cut down from £150 to £96. In prosperous years many tenants were only able to pay their rents at the expense of much misery. The recent exceptional distress put many people out of the capacity to pay even fair rents, and put all tenants out of their capacity to pay unfair rents; and yet it was the arrears of those unpayable rents which caused the military expenditure that was now astonishing the House. He did not believe there were 5 per cent of the people of Ireland who would countenance any interference with the operation of the Land Act if these arrears were dealt with. But it was impossible for the Land Act to have fair play, or for the reductions of rent to do any good to the people, until something was done to prevent the landlords evicting the people for the non-payment of arrears. They were nullifying the Act by these proceedings. They would have a very small military and police bill to pay for Ireland if they would deal with the arrears of unfair rents. If ever a Government were justified in taking steps of a humanitarian character, even if these involved the necessity for a Bill of Indemnity, it was the existing Government in the present state of Ireland. The Irish Members would not try to continue the present disastrous situation of affairs by offering opposition to any measure which would give those tenants breathing time, and which would thus enable the Land Act to have a fair chance, and the country to return to Constitutional government.

said, it was very seldem that he had been able so entirely to agree with the observations of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken as he did now. He felt bound to bear his testimony to the truth of the observations they had just listened to from the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The condition of things in Ireland was so bad that it was impossible to exaggerate it; and he could not avoid expressing his belief that, unless some great departure was taken to remedy the present state of things, occurrences would follow that would be a stain, not only upon the Government, but upon the country itself. No doubt there was great blame attaching to both sides. There had been stimulants applied to the Irish people not to pay their rents—not even to pay fair rents; but that which was the pressing matter now was the impossibility of their paying arrears of rent. In the part of the country where he lived there were at this moment numbers of people encamped on the hillside, who had been turned out nearly naked in the cold and wet, to seek such shelter as they could get from the winds of heaven, because they could not, even if they gave their skins and their bones, pay their arrears of rent. These were the people whom Her Majesty's troops were engaged in evicting. It was all very well to talk about enforcing the law and the duties of statesmanship; but there were considerations far beyond these, and that was, how to deal with a starving and hopeless people. When he heard those questions as to whether troops were to protect the police and the police were to perform the civil duties connected with evicting people from their homes who had nothing on their backs and nothing in their stomachs, he could not but feel that the times were out of joint, and that there was something wrong with the government of the country. He had heard with great distress that evening the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government say that he would not, under any circumstances, contemplate any Bill dealing with an amendment of the present Land Act.

Oh, no.

said, he was delighted to hear it.

My words were these. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. M'Coan) asked me whether I was prepared to recommend that a certain thing should be done by Order in Council or otherwise, and I said I had no power by Orders in Council, and, with regard to legislation, I was not able to contract any engagements.

apologized to the right hon. Gentleman; but he was glad he had fallen into the error, because the statement of the right hon. Gentleman would diffuse a ray of light on that unhappy country. He trusted the Government and the House would get into their minds and hearts this truth—that what was at the bottom of the difficulty now was the impossibility of the people paying the arrears of rent; and unless that fact was dealt with there was a probability that, in the future, they would see nothing better, but rather something worse, in the condition of the country.

rose simply to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury. They had been enabled to give to the House the gross total of the Army and Navy expenditure, amounting, as he understood, to £50,000; and the Secretary to the Treasury had told the House that the expenditure of the Civil Service Estimates for the Constabulary and for other items was something like £200,000, making a total in all of £250,000. He wished simply to suggest to the Government that as the Gentlemen he had referred to must have had the same figures upon which they had gone, that they should grant the last portion of the Motion, and allow a Re-turn to be made. The House was now acquainted with the grand total, and all they now wanted was the items. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War and the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would kindly consult together, he had no doubt that a satisfactory Return might be put before the House.

said, he did not think that the Ashantee speech to which they had listened from the hon. and gallant Member for East Suffolk (Colonel Barne) was likely to receive any attention from the Government. That hon. and gallant Member had peculiar opinions about how to make peace in Ireland. The kind of operations suggested by the hon. and gallant Member had been already tried in Ireland, and had proved a failure. The hanging and banishment of priests had been tried; and out of that long struggle the priests had come victorious, Suppose the system of fines which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had suggested were adopted, where would the money come from? But there was a fund out of which such fines could be taken if it were possible to impose them—they could be taken out of the rents of the landlords. That was the only fund the Irish tenants had; but henceforward they intended to support themselves and their families fairly and comfortably out of the fruits of their own industry, and to let all other claims and considerations come afterwards; and if they were forced to pay a mulct of this kind, unquestionably they would take it out of the moneys which the landlords would perhaps otherwise receive. He begged leave to tell the hon. and gallant hangman—[Cries of "Order! "and "Withdraw!"]—he begged leave to tell the hon. and gallant Member that his proposition breathed a spirit of brutality, and not the spirit of the age, and that the day was past when such an idea could be revived in Ireland.

I hope the hon. Member will withdraw that expression.

I withdraw the expression.

said, he had been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) whether the Government had not sent five additional regiments to Ireland, and also what was the average length of service of the troops sent to that country. He was unable to give any information as to the latter Question, because he had not brought the particulars down with him; but he could give the figures as to the former. The number of Infantry on the 1st of December was 20,800, and the number of Infantry at the present time was 21,300, so that there had been a total increase in three months of 500 men. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Eustace Cecil) had asked for details of the Army expenditure, on the ground of his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury having asked for certain sums for Civil expenditure; but he was afraid that it would be impossible for him to comply with that request at present. What he had done was to consult the gentlemen in the War Office who always watched this class of expenditure, and they had given him the best Estimate in. their power to the end of the year, naming £30,000. He thought he might undertake to say for himself and his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury that when the Session was further advanced they would do their best to give any further information in their possession.

said, he did not rise with the object of carrying on the discussion respecting the Irish policy of the Government, as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had placed an early day at the disposal of the House for the consideration of that question. He merely wished to point out what might be an explanation of the apparent inconsistency between the figures named by his noble Friend the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) and those of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with regard to the Irish establishment at the time the present Government came into Office. The noble Lord had stated the figures at 16,500, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War at something like 20,000 in round figures. The explanation might be sought in the fact that shortly before the late Government vacated Office a considerable reinforcement of the troops in Ireland took place. Amongst other regiments, the 57th Regiment arrived from Natal and went to Ireland, and its strength was computed at something like 1,000 men or over. One or two other regiments relieved the garrison in Ireland at about the same time. Probably the figures quoted by his noble Friend were correct for November or December, 1879, if not for the February of the following year.

said, he had not the privilege of listening to the early part of the debate, and therefore did. not intend to offer any observations upon what transpired in his absence. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) seemed to have understood the Prime Minister to speak hopefully of the future condition of Ireland; but he understood the right hon. Gentleman differently. The Prime Minister had such a happy faculty of speaking in such a way that it was impossible to understand clearly what he intended to convey; and perhaps he would get up and tell the House precisely what his intentions were with regard to the question of arrears. He did not at all share the view of the hon. Member for Galway that the observations of the Prime Minister would cast a ray of hope over Ireland which would at some time be realized. He much feared that the ray of hope would be of little practical value. With regard to the question of arrears, it was well known that the unfortunate tenants of Ireland were helplessly in debt to their landlords, and for that reason they were evicted from their holdings. There was a very curious thing about those evictions. The Prime Minister sent his son, the Member for Leeds, to get some knowledge and information in Ireland, and it was a very curious thing that for that purpose the position which the right hon. Gentleman selected for him was that of superintending the evictions of poor people who had no means of paying their rent. The right hon. Gentleman naturally desired to do the best he could for that pert young hopeful of his; and, no doubt, with the intention of getting him a permanent situation in the Civil Service, he deputed him to see a lot of poor people thrown out on the country-side without shelter or the means of getting a living. Now, the right hon. Gentleman had himself estimated that an eviction was equal to a sentence of death; and therefore he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he tried to get the reversion of the post now held by Marwood for the Member for Leeds, it would be a suitable position for him.

The observations just made by the hon. Member for Cavan are hardly worthy even of him. I heard him call my son, the Member for Leeds, a "young hopeful." If I had seen the Member for Leeds in his place I should have left it to him to show the hon. Member whether he was a young hopeful or not; but, in the meantime, I may observe to the hon. Gentleman for his information that the ordinary practice of the older Members in this House—I may say the uniform practice—has been to afford kindly welcome to every young Member. Moreover, I must say I have never been able to trace in the case of the reception of any young man in this House any distinction between one side of the House and the other in regard to the manner of that reception, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman. And perhaps it will be the prin- cipal distinction that his Parliamentary career will confer that he has broken that tradition, and has chosen to speak of a young Member of this House, in the absence of that Member, as a "young hopeful." With regard to the other allusion which the hon. Member has made, and which is brutal in its character, I shall take no notice of it whatever, except to say that I do not believe there is one man among the Members who sit round the hon. Gentleman, and generally vote and speak with him, that will rise in his place to sustain or to apologize for that reference. I leave it to the hon. Gentleman himself to judge whether, after what has taken place, he will rise in his place and express his regret for the words that fell from him. It is a matter, perhaps, of interest and concern to himself, whatever it may be to anybody else. But the hon. Gentleman also said that the hon. Member for Leeds had gone into a certain part of Ireland to superintend evictions. With regard to that statement I can only say that it is entirely without foundation; there is not the slightest foundation for it—the Member for Leeds had no official character or function whatever. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) referred to a point in the statistics which, I think, deserves perhaps a little further analysis. In February, 1880, the number of Infantry in Ireland was, in round numbers, 20,500, which was about the average for that season of the year.

What I said was, that the figures of the noble Earl (Earl Percy) and the Secretary of State for War would be approximately right if, instead of February, 1880, he went back to November or the Summer of 1879.

In that case, the observation merely shows that the noble Earl quoted for February—having no official sources of information at his command—figures which would have been true at a former period. Yes; but it would only have been accidentally true at a former period, because, owing to the drain for South Africa, the regiments had been accidentally reduced. In considering what is the excessive number of troops in Ireland, the question is, what is the ordinary number? I have a list of figures showing the numbers in February for several years, and 20,500 is the average. The figures ran from 21,000 to 22,000, and as high as 23,000 and 24,000.

I hope the House will not think I intended to mislead it. I gave the best figures I could.

, referring to the allusion of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), said, he was glad that the hon. Member for Leeds, in his journeyings through Ireland, had taken the trouble and the pains to see what Irish evictions really were. He (Mr. Bichardson) would not attempt to apologize for the hon. Member for Cavan, as those around him had not done so; but he might inform the House that before he (Mr. Richardson) had left Ireland to be present at the opening of Parliament, he had had a conversation with a former schoolmaster of the hon. Member, who had hoped the House would not be too hard upon his pupil, because he could not help troubling the House sometimes, as in his youth he had always been a very naughty and troublesome little boy.

considered the House had not been fairly treated in having Supplementary Estimates of so large an amount brought forward at so early a period of the Session.

wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any additional information with reference to the Commercial Treaty with France?

Since I gave an answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke) early this evening, I have received a communication from the French Government. I do not think it would be desirable for me to state its terms to the House; but I may say that it affords a prospect of as satisfactory an arrangement as is possible under the circumstances.

rose to call attention to the threatened withdrawal by the Government of police protection from caretakers placed in charge of vacant farms by the agents of the Property Defence Association in Ireland. A few days ago he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it were correct, as stated in The Times, that the Government intended to withdraw the protection of the police from caretakers who had been placed on vacant farms in Ireland by the Association? The right hon. Gentleman returned an answer which he (Mr. Chaplin) confessed he was unable at the time clearly to understand, and, therefore, he intimated his intention of repeating it. As the right hon. Gentleman had now come back from Ireland, he trusted some information would be given to the House on this subject, which appeared to be assuming a somewhat serious aspect. The Association was intended to assist the Government in its conflict with the Land League, by providing persons to take up vacant farms, and furnishing labour where, through intimidation, it could not be procured in the districts; and it was obvious that if its work was to have any beneficial effect, its agents ought to have the protection of the Government when their lives wore in danger. But he was now informed that there had recently been cases where application had been made to the Government for protection, life and property being endangered, and that the Government had replied protection could not be counted on, the time having arrived when these people must arm themselves for their own defence. He should like to know if that was correct; whether it was to be understood for the future that, in the work of the Property Defence Association, when the lives of persons in their employment were endangered, it was expected by the Government that armed men should be engaged by the Association where the Government were unwilling to afford protection; or whether the Government were still prepared to give security and protection to life and property in Ireland? He hoped the House would receive assurances from the Government that they were both able and willing to give the latter.

, in reply, said, he understood the Question to be, whether the Government intend to send police to give personal protection to all caretakers? They could not undertake to give protection in every case in which it was asked for. The Government must use their own discretion, and in those cases where they considered that without police protection there would be danger to life and property it was their duty to give it. But the applications made to the Government seemed to him to infer that, as a matter of course, police should be sent to be by the side of every caretaker. That was an absolute impossibility, and no Government could undertake it, neither could he imagine that any person would really ask it. It was by no means necessary that there should be in all cases caretakers present. It also ought to be borne in mind that the protection afforded was far greater than had ever been given by any Government, and in some cases the protection thus given had been abused, as in the case where a body of men were lodged in a miserable hut that the landlord would not put in repair, while the caretaker was given to habits of drunkenness. The Government were, therefore, bound to exercise some care. But it must be borne in mind that the Government had a right to expect individuals to do something for themselves. In one instance protection was asked when the head of the house was an able-bodied man, and there were three other able-bodied men on the premises. Such a request, he thought, was unreasonable; though the Government could not divest themselves of the responsibility of protecting property, and especially life. The Government must decide the cases in which they should send police to reside at a house or farm, and, generally speaking, they thought that protection would be best given by patrol, and by having the police so arranged that they might be called upon at any moment. He was asked whether he thought caretakers would be at liberty to defend themselves. Undoubtedly, they were at liberty to defend themselves, and he considered that the Government had a right to expect that they would to some extent do so. He did not think any Government could re- lieve persons in that situation from doing something for their own protection.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had not quite answered one of his Questions, and, as the matter was an important one, he must repeat it. Would it be with the sanction and encouragement of the Government, that the Property Defence Association should employ armed bodies of their own for the purpose of giving protection and security to life and property in cases where the Government might be unable or unwilling to afford it?

, in reply, said, that he understood the Property Defence Association was in the same position as any ordinary member of society. If they or their servants were attacked, they had a right to defend themselves, and they would themselves have to judge when force should be exercised in so defending themselves. His hon. Friend asked whether the Government would sanction such a proceeding. Of course they would do so, just in the same way as any Government would sanction the same course either in England or elsewhere.

said, that the hon. Gentleman who had asked the Question (Mr. Chaplin) appeared to have lost sight of one class of persons who were greatly affected by the present state of affairs. The persons most needing protection were the small tenant farmers, who in all cases had been the victims of outrage, and had no sympathy with the perpetrators of outrage. The only system by which they could be protected would be by an efficient system of patrolling, which could not be carried out if large bodies of police were engaged, as at present, in giving personal protection. He knew many police stations which had been denuded of their proper complement of police, so that patrolling duty had been rendered impossible, and thus many small tenants had not got the protection that they really needed. He sincerely hoped that Her Majesty's Government would keep to their resolution of not sending police upon personal protection duty. He held that if it was necessary to send armed forces to protect the civil powers, troops instead of police should be employed, as the police had other duties, and would most serviceably be employed on patrol.

agreed that it was quite impossible to take exception to what the Government had laid down, that they must be the judges of the reasonableness of requests for protection. It was quite out of the question to send police to every person who was unduly alarmed. But the right hon. Gentleman would recognize that the Government assumed a great responsibility in every case where they refused protection. They ought to satisfy themselves that the request was unreasonable. Of course, in cases where such protection had been abused, the Government would be quite right in discontinuing it; but it would be another thing if they refused to grant protection on the ground of want of forces, and other considerations would arise. Was there such a deficiency of force?

said, that the right hon. Gentleman's experience of Ireland would show him that there must be a limit to the number of men who could be employed, and it would be the business of the Government to employ that number of men in the best way possible. He could only repeat what he said before, that they could not make it a rule to give protection in every case where it was asked for. They would consider each case where an adequate protection could be given without individual soldiers or policemen being sent.

said, it was evident that the right hon. Gentleman contemplated refusing applications for police protection which he would comply with if lie had sufficient men at his disposal. That was entirely a different question from the refusal to give protection, because, in the opinion of the Government, that protection was not required. If the right hon. Gentleman had occasion to refuse such protection to individuals, after he had become satisfied that it was required, and based his refusal on the inability of the Government to confer it, he would incur the most serious responsibility. The position he should assume would be to come to the House and ask for further means——

I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the great majority of the demands made upon us are for the protection of property, and not for the protection of life.

said, he would go further and say that the fundamental duty of any Government was to protect property as well as life; and, if the forces at the disposal of a Government were not adequate for the protection of both property and life, it was their duty to go to Parliament and ask that the means at their disposal might be supplemented. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to say that he would be fully prepared to afford encouragement to the Property Defence Association.

I really must ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what he means by encouragement. I did not use the word encouragement.

Sanction was the word.

said, there was no very wide dissimilarity between encouragement and sanction. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to withdraw his assurance that the sanction of the Government would not be withheld from the Property Defence Association supplying armed forces to protect its agents who were engaged in the duty of care-taking. That being the case, he (Mr. J. Lowther) must point out that the Government were certainly prepared to extend their sanction to a state of affairs which would be clearly within a "measurable distance of civil war." The right hon. Gentleman must realize that if, in the opinion of the Advisers of the Crown, personal police protection was necessary in Ireland for the preservation of life or of property, it was the duty of the Government themselves to give that protection. The manner in "which that protection was to be given was a matter that came within the discrimination of the Executive Government; but they would be abdicating their executive functions when they said a state of affairs might arise in which the Government might be debarred, through lack of men, from giving protection to life and property, and were prepared to give its sanction to a private agency to carry out that duty. He thought it was a matter which required the very serious consideration of the House, and he hoped in the course of the debates that were likely to occur on the subject of Ireland some more explicit declaration of the Government policy on this subject would be announced.

Prom the opposite side of the House, Sir, we have heard that there are already too many men in Ireland; now, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) says there are too few. But I wish to say that what the Chief Secretary for Ireland stated was that the Government will not relieve individuals from the individual responsibility of defending themselves—that the Government will, in all cases where it is reasonably necessary, take every precaution within their power for the protection of life and property; that the responsibility rests with the Government; that they must do it in the way they think best, and they must procure sufficient force for the purpose, and apply it in the most effectual and economical manner. If the right hon. Member supposes that the Chief Secretary for Ireland sanctions the Property Defence Association, or any other association, raising a body of armed men, and keeping them up and sending them about the country to such destinations as they think fit, the right hon. Member is in error. For my part, I have only to repeat what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has said—that the Government will do their best to supply in all reasonable cases, and under all reasonable circumstances, protection to life and property, and that with all the force and resources at their disposal.

said, there had been no complaint of the number of men employed by the Government in Ireland. What hon. Members wanted to know was how many men there were and what extra expense had been incurred. The state of things in Ireland was extremely grave. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had told them that the present Government had spent more money in the protection of life and property in Ireland than any preceding Government had done, and that their resources were nearly exhausted. He (Mr. Balfour), however, thought no one would say that life and property had been more protected than in the time of a preceding Government. If more protection was afforded, it was simply because more protection was required. He thought the Government would hardly say that the increased requirement had been fully met.

said, it was a mistake to suppose he had said that the Government's resources were exhausted, and that they were unable to afford protection in cases where protection was reasonably required. What he had intended to convey to the House was that it would very likely be beyond the power of the Government to grant personal police protection in every case in which it was asked for.

said, the right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to private enterprize with reference to work which was commonly done by paid agents of the Government. He (Mr. Balfour) thought that in Ireland they were approaching a state of pre-civiliza-tion—

"When they should take who have the power,

And they should keep who can."

said, the Peace Preservation Act, the only Act the hon. Member could be possibly referring to, required a licence to have arms, and he (Mr. W. E. Forster) should be exceedingly surprised if the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member could produce a case in which a licence had been refused to a person who was entitled to take a licence.

presumed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in encouraging-private persons to take upon themselves their own defence, did not mean them to go beyond what they were entitled to do by the Common Law of the land. Now the Common Law was very limited, and he (Mr. T. C. Thompson) should like to know whether any alteration in it was contemplated by which caretakers defending themselves, and possibly overstepping the very thin line between self-defence and what was regarded by law as assault, would not, after being encouraged by the Government to defend themselves, be subjected to prosecution? The Government ought to be careful lest they gave encouragement to poor ignorant persons in Ireland to break through the law of the land. It was scarcely possible for armed men in an excited state to confine themselves to retaliating upon those who attacked them, and, consequently, it was greatly to be feared that innocent persons might, by the suggestion of the Government, be led to commit acts which would expose them to the risk of punishment by law.

said, that, as one of the many people connected by interest or association with the protection of life and property in Ireland, he would like to understand the exact position of the Government in this matter, as it seemed they had made a new departure in their policy with respect to the protection of caretakers. They know the Common Law doctrine as to the right of self-defence; but the line between lawful and unlawful resistance was very thinly drawn, and there were some instances on record in which juries both in England and Ireland had undertaken to say that the resistance offered in self-defence was unreasonable, and that for the injuries so inflicted the prisoner was responsible in law. He did not say that the Government were not pressed with difficulties which deserved the consideration of the House. He did not, therefore, blame them; but it was impossible to overlook the case as regarded the protection of caretakers, who might, perhaps, be in charge of a farm bordering a lonely road, or upon a mountain side. These people would be in doubt whether they might employ armed resistance to attack, for the warning from the Treasury Bench might imply that they might be prosecuted by Government, if they inflicted mortal injuries upon anyone. But he begged leave to say again what he had said before, that responsibility rested with the Government for the state of things which existed in Ireland from the 1st of June, 1880. At that time the country had for some time been free from the unlawful possession of arms; but, through the failure of the Government to renew the Peace Preservation Act, it had now drifted into a totally different condition. The population was secretly armed, and persons who were in the position of caretakers were in circum- stances of the greatest possible difficulty with regard to armed mobs. It was essential that the Government should let the people of Ireland know distinctly what was the remedy they were to be at liberty to use, and to what extent they might protect themselves without the danger of being subsequently prosecuted.

said, he was afraid that caretakers would find themselves placed in a very difficult position by the extraordinary and dangerous doctrines the Government had laid down. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland seemed to suppose that everyone who had a house might resist every attack made upon him. He (Mr. Warton) would venture to alter the expression of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) to the effect that the difference was one between legal and illegal resistance, and would say that the law drew a distinction between resistance and excessive resistance. A man had a right to turn a trespasser out of his house, but he must use no more force than was necessary for the purpose. If a number of men came and pointed weapons at a man, then he might have a right to shoot them, but not otherwise. There might be no right to use weapons against persons coming to the houses in which the caretakers were, because they might pretend that they came for a legal purpose—to use some of the moral arguments of the Land League. If men were shot the result would be that juries would find almost every caretaker guilty of murder. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had wavered very much in this matter. The plain, practical common sense of the late Chief Secretary contrasted strongly with the conduct of the present Chief Secretary. The late Chief Secretary pointed out that such a state of things as was now contemplated was little better than civil war. It seemed to him (Mr. Warton) that there were only three states of society possible. First, there was the absolutely savage state of society, when every man was for himself; secondly, there was the semi-savage state, when the honest men combined and formed vigilance associations for the punishment of wrong-doers and the suppression of crime; and, thirdly, there was a state of civilization where the State protected individuals. The Chief Secretary for Ireland sought to reduce Ireland to the second stage, and to throw upon individuals the duty of affording themselves that protection which the Government withheld from them. The Government seemed to be trying with how few policemen they could govern Ireland. They ought to increase the number of men until every loyal person who ought to be protected was protected. By the in competency of the Government, Ireland had been reduced to a state in which men must unite together to put down those who had no regard for property or life; and now they were, or appeared to be, jealous of the Property Defence Association, who had stepped in to do what the Government itself had failed to do. He did not scruple to say that the Government wished to put these caretakers in a most dangerous position—first of all not to give them the protection to which they were entitled, and then to lead them into difficulty as to the amount of resistance which they were entitled to give. A case was reported in "Russell on Crimes" in which a man was convicted of murder and hung for shooting another who came upon his property. These caretakers would not care to what extent they might go in their own defence. It was stated by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that they must not take the Constabulary away from their patrol duty. He (Mr. Warton) maintained that if they could not now afford to take the men away from patrol, the Constabulary should be so increased that the necessary protection could be given. The Government had already attempted to govern Ireland by introducing the most barbarous and semi-civilized ideas with regard to freedom of contract in the matter of land, and they were now trying to reproduce in the country a barbarous state of society.

said, he thought the Chief Secretary for Ireland had allowed himself to be drawn into dangerous ground by the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). The Government had been asked to give countenance to the formation of another Army in Ireland, which would not be under Government control or discipline, and which would be a very great danger to the peace of Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had, in his (Mr. Sullivan's) opinion, given too much encouragement to the proposal, and his words, when reported in Ireland, would cause a storm of disapprobation. Did the hon. Member who made the proposal mean that this new Army should be supplied with Government rifles, and with what had been referred to in that House as "a certain kind of ammunition?" It seemed to him that this was the suggestion. He warned the Chief Secretary for Ireland to be careful how he gave ear to temptations like these, and how he extended approbation to a scheme for sending bands of armed men into the villages of Ireland to do pretty much as they liked under the plea that they were acting in self-defence. There were already the Military, the Constabulary, the Marines, and the Navy, and it was now sought to obtain Government sanction for the Orange Emergency men. They knew what that meant in Ireland, for the name of the Orange yeomanry of former days was still regarded with horror and detestation by the people.

said, that it had been suggested by some speakers that the duty of the Government was to relieve owners of property from protecting their rights or defending their lives. That was a very dangerous doctrine to suggest, and he must protest against the idea that the Government was bound to relieve individuals from the duty of self-protection. It was not only the absolute right, but he believed it was the natural and primary duty of every individual to protect his own life and property. The ton. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson) had predicted that great difficulties might arise from people not knowing the actual amount of force they might use. Yet the doctrine applied to every community besides Ireland, and the difficulty anticipated was not found to exist. Injury to property did not justify one man shooting another. A man might injure your property to the extent of walking over your flower-bed, but for that you must not shoot him. But if he attempted to take your life, you had a perfect right to resist even to the extent, if necessary, of taking his life. The law was very well defined on the subject. The various questions raised in that House did not affect the broad question, which was one applicable, not only to Ireland, but to every community. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had only stated the course which every individual, under every Government, was permitted to take. He had said that the Government would sanction resistance by persons whose lives or whose property was attacked. That was not sanctioning exceptional or illegal action. It was sanctioning the action which it was the right and duty of every citizen in every country and during every period to enjoy. It would be a dangerous thing to say in any community that the citizen was to give up this right of self-defence, and to become utterly inert, and leave the protection of his life and property to others. That being the view of his right hon. Friend, he could not be said to encourage civil warfare. He was only calling upon every citizen to perform his duties, and accept his own proper responsibility of discriminating as to those persons to whom he would, when their natural protection was not sufficient, give police protection. It was said that the caretakers were entitled to rely on the powers of the Executive; but it was manifestly impossible that they could rely on the Constabulary alone. In that case, it would be necessary always to maintain a military force in the particular district if there were any attempted outrages whatever. The protection should be the ordinary kind of protection given by law; and, at the same time, the caretaker should consider that the force upon which he could rely in case of emergency was not without limit. He must use his discretion, and only resort to the protection of the Executive when the ordinary protection afforded by law proved insufficient. The Government must, no doubt, do its utmost to see that the law was carried out, yet it must not unnecessarily come into conflict with the people. It must meet the necessities of each particular case as they arise, and use its discretion as to the mode of meeting those necessities. He trusted that in this difficulty his right hon. Friend would have the assistance of all loyal persons.

said, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland of the support of all loyal citizens in all reasonable efforts for the good government of the country; but still the Government had announced a new arrangement which was the result of some change of plan in the Executive of Ireland, and they were justified in considering the circumstances which caused that change. If a change had, in fact, taken place, it might be a legitimate change if the circumstances had changed. The result, however, might be to entail a serious sense of responsibility on both sides. As he (Mr. Gibson) understood the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the question to be considered in each case was whether the circumstances were such that protection should be reasonably given or with held. It must be borne in mind that certain persons living in troubled and disturbed districts where they obtained the possession of farms owing to eviction were naturally nervous and apprehensive. They asked for assistance and met with a refusal. Of course, it was fair and reasonable for the Government to say that they would scrutinize jealously and closely every demand for assistance; but if they said to men placed in the position he had described, "You must wait until an emergency arises before we give you protection, and in the meantime you are called upon to protect yourself," they would undoubtedly place those men in a very difficult and painful position. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would sanction those men using all the powers of self-defence. That meant nothing. The ordinary Common Law of the land, without any sanction from the right hon. Gentleman, gave those men the power of defending themselves if their lives or limbs were in jeopardy. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman left them to act on their own discretion with the ordinary powers of the Common Law, and with neither encouragement nor sanction, because the sanction meant nothing, and there was no question of encouragement. He made these observations to show the grave responsibility incurred by the Government, and he was bound to say that the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not appear in the slightest degree to shrink from a due recommendation of that responsibility. The hon. and learned Attorney General for England stated that a person so left to his own discretion should solve his difficulties within the law. He (Mr. Gibson) quite recognized that. In other words, it was not in the power of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he withdrew constables or special protection, to give any power to act outside the law to those whose request for assistance he deliberately refused. But that was rather cold comfort to a man who had already warned the Executive that he expected to be threatened, and possibly to be made the subject of outrage, and had been deliberately refused protection. He again desired to indicate that the refusal of a request for protection under the exceptional circumstances which existed at present obviously entailed the serious responsibility. He admitted, that if requests of that kind had been abused, it should induce the Government to exercise caution and supervision; but it was a circumstance that should induce the Government also to be keenly alive to the grave responsibility of any such refusal.

said, that the observation that every citizen had a right to defend his property did not apply to a caretaker, who was not taking care of his own property; he was taking care of someone else's, and was generally put in possession alone, but sometimes two care-takers were employed together. What would be the proceedings of those caretakers under the advice recommended by the Government? They would first of all say they were in great danger, and probably would bring some of their friends in the locality, with arms, to assist them in defending themselves. But supposing their friends did come down to them at night with arms in their hands for their protection, was that a proceeding that would be sanctioned by the Government? Would not such persons be held liable by the Government for carrying arms in a proscribed district? But, if they could not get protection from their neighbours, they might do so from one of the Defence Societies—that was to say, armed labourers might be sent down, as in the case of Captain Boycott, with the sanction of the Government. The Government refused the promoters of the Boycott expedition permission to send 200 armed men, from the North into Mayo, because they thought it would lead to civil war, and they were perfectly right. But what was the difference between 200 or 300 men going to Mayo at that time, and 10 or 12 men sent now by the Property Defence Association into some remote district with rifles and revolvers, to protect men who could not obtain police protection? It surely was better to employ disciplined men rather than undisciplined men to act in such cases, for they would act with caution and under some sense of responsibility. It must be remembered that in defending places from attack at night, these non-disciplined men could not act like the members of a disciplined force; they would not venture outside the house, but would most likely open the windows and fire at anything they saw approaching; but that would be a highly dangerous mode of proceeding. Persons might come to the house at night with a perfectly innocent intention and might be shot in that manner. Another matter was this—persons taking care of caretakers in this manner might indulge in drink, and when inflamed by some sudden alarm, might they not be disposed to fire away all round them? He really thought this proposal or intention of the Government was one of the most dangerous he had heard yet. He believed it would be much cheaper and better in the end to increase the police force than to run the risk of initiating a series of petty civil wars. Proceedings on the part of caretakers would be certain to provoke acts of murder and retaliation. An Englishman living in his own house, in town or country, was in a very different position from an Irishman living in a lone country place; and to leave these persons in Ireland to take care of themselves, either with the assistance of their friends, or with the help of armed parties sent by a body like the Emergency Society, would be very injurious to the peace of that country.

said, that, having already spoken, he had no right to address the House; but he would ask leave to make an explanation, because he gathered that it had been imputed to him that the suggestion of the employment of armed bodies of men other than forces under the control of the Government had been made by him. He had made no such suggestion. On the contrary, he could not imagine anything that was more likely to create civil war. He had asked for an explanation of an answer which had been given to him by a Member of the Government. In his answer the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland appeared to encourage the idea of what might be called self protection or self-defence. Now, the position of a caretaker was out) of imminent danger, and no caretaker could protect himself. He must, therefore, express his decided opinion that this matter remained in a most unsatisfactory state.

said, he was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland safely returned from Ireland, where he had gone to assist in the return of his (Mr. O'Donnell's) hon. Friend the new Member for Meath. He could assure the House that there was no other Gentleman in the United Kingdom who was so capable of securing similar returns from one end of Ireland to the other. He understood he had deigned to give his sanction to the formation of parties—the "Guerillas" he believed he might call them—who were to be engaged, as the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) had justly described, in the initiation of a source of civil war in Ireland. However, those who were interested on the side of the landlords need not be alarmed on account of the sanction which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given to operations of that kind. The hon. and learned Attorney General had pointed out that every one of the Emergency men connected with those operations would be bound not to make excessive use of his power—that to reply to a trifling menace by a bullet or a volley of buckshot would not be a crime according to the Common Law, which in Ireland was no law at all under Her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. O'Donnell) begged to remind the defenders of the landlord cause in Ireland that the sanction of the Government in Ireland was quite excluded in the alarm of any excessive danger being incurred by caretakers or others who might commit "fatal mistakes" of that description, because it would always be in the power of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to move the Queen's Bench to question such inconvenient circumstances as the verdicts of wilful murder returned by coroners' juries. The other day, in the eases where Ellen M'Donagh, a girl of 20 years of age, was stamped to death, and a poor old widow of the name of Deane was shot by the Constabulary, the Government obtained from the Irish Court of Queen's Bench a conditional order quashing the verdicts of wilful murder against the constables who killed that girl and that widow. Therefore, the hon. Member for Tyrone need have no fear as to the result of the "accidents" which might arise through the convivial carousing to which he had referred. There was really no hindrance put in the way of societies or associations for the defence of property in Ireland. But the sanction of the Government would be found to be a good deal more elastic than india-rubber; and unless people also considered the sanction extended to them, and took necessary steps in self-defence against the "Guerilla" Emergency men, he was afraid there would be no end to the operations which the landlord party might have recourse to. But, looking at the matter from a Liberal point of view, if the landlord party wished to have a just and sufficient amount of protection for their operations, they should limit their operations to what was just and right. The thing that was driving all matters to a desperate pass in Ireland was the exaction of arrears. Let the landlords of Ireland take example from the landlords of England. Let them make large, just, and generous concessions in the matter of arrears accruing from bad seasons, and there would be no necessity for multiplying the number of their caretakers, and no necessity for such methods of protecting them, or for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to sanction them.

objected to the mode of rewarding services to the Crown and country by granting residences to families at Hampton Court and other Royal Palaces, and expressed a hope that the Government would bring the present system to an end. Every year there was a charge for repairs and extensive alterations to be found in the Votes, and almost every year there was a Supplementary Estimate for the same purpose. He thought it would be far better for the House of Commons to come to an agreement with the Crown that a certain sum of money should be placed at the disposal of the Crown for the purpose of rewarding the families of public servants, and allowing them to find suitable accommodation for themselves. The present mode was not only costly to the country, but it was a mode of rewarding public services which was unsuitable to the persons rewarded themselves. At present many families were occupying apartments in Hampton Court and other Royal Palaces who ought to be able to mix with the people and live with them. He had often complained of this Vote, and had more than once brought it under the attention of the House. If rumour were true, there was about to be a demand upon the public purse for another Member of the Royal Family. He had always supported the claim of the Royal Family to be provided for; but he thought that the attempt to get every kind of expenditure connected with the Royal Palaces charged on the House of Commons was injurious to the Royal Family themselves, and he hoped the Government would try to do away with the present system of occupying apartments in the Royal Palaces. He was quite willing that the nation should perform the duty of providing for any Kings and Princes who might come upon a visit to this country. But at present there was no Palace whatever for these illustrious personages—at any rate, there was no Palace in which they could be adequately received and have fair and courteous treatment done to them. Whenever a Royal Potentate visited this country he was either obliged to go to some hotel, or some Members of the Royal Family had to take him into the Palace set apart for their own special accommodation. That was the arrangement which had been made on other occasions, and it was a most unsatisfactory one. He held distinctly that the nation had a duty to perform in finding accommodation for Royalty when it came over here, and that there should be Royal Palaces in which to lodge any Crowned Head or Royal Prince if necessary. In the case of the Shah of Persia, when he came over here, he occupied one of the Royal Palaces set apart especially for the Queen. He (Sir George Bal-four) knew perfectly well that he should meet with no support from the Government, and it would be undignified for him to divide the House of Commons upon a matter of this kind; but if the Government would not receive the remonstrance of an hon. Member like himself, and would continue to neglect their duty, he could not help it. At all events, he had urged his objection to the system which now prevailed. He might mention that on one occasion he had obtained leave from the Chief Commissioner of the late Government to move for a Return of the names of all all persons occupying apartments in the Royal Palaces; but, on consideration, he thought that, perhaps, the Return might give unnecessary pain to the individuals occupying apartments in the Palaces and who had accepted the Royal bounty. He had not, therefore, pressed for the production of the Return. Of course, there were means of ascertaining who these persons were, and he thought it would be much better to give them an allowance—say £200 or £500, or even £1,000 a-year, if necessary, to find apartments for themselves, so as to enable them not only to mix with the people, but to occupy residences suitable to their condition in life.

said, the items to which the hon. and gallant Member called attention were rendered necessary by the repair of certain apartments. He did not think that the Committee would expect him to go, on the present occasion, into the very wide subject which had been raised by his hon and gallant Friend. It was true that for many years Hampton Court and Kensington Palaces had been devoted to purposes other than Royal residence, most of the apartments having been occupied by the widows of persons who had rendered public service. Most of these apartments were totally unfit for any other purpose, and were certainly not suitable for receiving Royalty, as his hon. and gallant Friend suggested. He did not admit that expense had been occasioned by alterations in them to suit the convenience of the occupiers.

said, that what he asked for was information. He had visited these Palaces himself, and he knew that extensive changes had been made—especially at Kensington Palace—in order to make the Palaces more suitable for the persons required to live in them. Not only £1,000, but many thousands of pounds, had been expended in that manner, and he thought it would be much, better to make the Palaces suitable for the accommodation of Royalty, or pull them down altogether. He had inquired why the changes were being made, and he was told that they were to provide suitable accommodation for the persons who wanted to use them. He, therefore, considered that it was his duty to bring the matter before the House. He knew perfectly well that nothing he could say would induce the Government to do that which he asked. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman thought the Government were acting rightly; but he (Sir George Balfour) would leave it to the Committee to judge whether that was so or not.

said he wished to call attention to the large increase in this Vote. The original Estimate was £3,515, and the additional sum required £1,800. This was stated to be necessary 'in consequence of the acceleration of the progress of the Survey of the United Kingdom;" but that acceleration was resolved on long before the original Estimate was prepared, and in the Supplementary Estimate of last year an addition of £1,500 was included in consequence of that acceleration. He thought that, in these circumstances, the original Estimate should have been framed so as to include a large portion of what now appeared in the Supplementary Estimate.

said, the hon. Member was perfectly right in saying that the House had been asked for an additional sum in the previous year over and above that which was required this year; and the expenditure was rendered necessary in consequence of a very largely-increased number of persons being employed in the completion of the Survey. In consequence of this increased number of persons, it was necessary that additional buildings should be provided for their accommodation. He might also point out that it was intended to ask for another additional sum of £20,000 in order to enable the Survey to be accelerated, and the sum asked for in this Vote was to meet the anticipated increase next year.

said, he thought the Vote contained a grave accusation against the Commissioners of Supply, Scotland, in delaying to send in the accounts of the outlay on the Sheriff Courts. The Commissioners were generally very regular in all they did; and he would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to tell the Committee what part of Scotland had been so negligent in delaying to send in its accounts? He believed that if the name of the county were given to the public the same delay would not occur again.

said, the claim was for repayment of half the cost of building certain works. The payment was supposed to be made when the works were completed, and in the course of a very short time they would be completed. In preparing the Estimate, of course, the Government could only be guided by the accounts sent in. They had to pay the claim when it was made upon them. He believed that this particular claim was in respect of Aberdeenshire. The sum the Government were called upon to pay was £1,000. The expenditure had been extended over three years and three-quarters, and the account was only sent in last year.

said, he was sure he should receive the support of the Government, and especially that of the First Commissioner of Works, in opposing this Vote. He maintained that to add to the works at Dover without giving the House of Commons previous notice, was a breach of the agreement already entered into in regard to a cessation of expenditure at Dover Bay. It would be borne in mind that some years ago there was an inquiry into a proposed large expenditure on Dover, the object of which was to prevent loose Estimates of this nature being introduced, and an expenditure entered into which might, in the end, involve the country in an outlay of several millions sterling. That inquiry was successful; the late Government at once stopped the intended outlay. But here they had, at the fag end of the Session, a new charge made for Dover Harbour, which, as was well known, was in contravention of the agreement already made. So far as he could remember, there was not a single particle of information in existence which showed that this charge for moorings had been incurred on the part of the Government; and if hon. Members would support him he would divide the Committee against it, for the purpose of showing how objectionable it was to have these small bills asked for additional works at Dover Harbour. He knew very well that there was a strong desire to get a fine harbour at Dover. [Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH dissented.] The noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) shook his head; but they all knew that such an idea existed, and in a very influential quarter, and he now hoped the noble Lord would be able to explain why this unexpected expenditure had been incurred, and why it had not been inserted in the regular Estimates, instead of being kept for a Supplemental one.

could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that this sum had nothing to do with any extension of Dover Harbour. His own feeling with regard to that question was exactly that of his hon. and gallant Friend; but this item had nothing whatever to do with any new works or extension of Dover Harbour. The simple fact was that Dover Harbour was in the hands of the Government. A proposal was made last year to vest it in the local authorities; but, owing to local difficulties, that proposal could not be carried out, and Dover Harbour still remained in the hands of the Government. In that harbour it was found that certain moorings, which had been there for more than 30 years, had become absolutely unsafe. Now, he did not think that his hon. and gallant Friend would be of opinion that ships should be fastened to moorings which were known to be in a dangerous state. The Vote had nothing to do with any works, but was simply for the purpose of replacing old moorings by providing new ones.

said, he did not think there was any ob- jection to the charge if it was simply for moorings of the nature described by the noble Lord, and for pilot boats, he presumed. At the same time, he did not see why the Government should be called upon to provide moorings for ships or boats without levying fees. Of course, it was a very small sum, and it was hardly worth while to object to it, except on principle. If the old moorings were bad, of course they ought to be replaced. But this ought to have been foreseen when the regular Estimates were prepared. But he strongly suspected that the duty of replacing them really rested with the town of Dover. The noble Lord knew very well the interest he took in Dover; but, in the present instance, he would be content with reserving any objection he might have to offer until after Easter, when the Estimates for Harbours would come regularly before the House.

asked for an explanation of this Vote. He wanted to know what it really meant. He understood that it was for rates and contributions in lieu of rates in Ireland. What connection had the Government with rates and contributions in lieu of rates in Ireland? In what way did they become responsible for these rates?

said, the hon. Member knew that the Queen's College in Belfast was the property of the Government, and for that property the Government were liable to contribute towards the rates.

asked if he was to understand that the work was to be finished during the financial year, and that this sum of £3,000 was the whole of the money that would be asked for?

said, the work would not be completed during the present year; but the sum of £3,000 would be spent during the year.

said, the increase upon this Vote seemed to him to be a very large one. The sum appeared to have been expended entirely in telegrams. He thought that a sum of £6,000 for telegrams, even in South Africa, was a very large amount. Things were very much more threatening last year in South Africa, and a similar expenditure was not required. He wished to know what the explanation of the increase was.

said, the hon. Member was no doubt aware that a Royal Commission had been appointed for the purpose of undertaking certain negotiations in South Africa, owing to the disputes between the Transvaal and ourselves. During those negotiations it was found necessary to telegraph very frequently between the Colonial Office and the Commissioners, and telegraphing from here to South Africa was not a very cheap matter.

said, he wished to call attention to one item under sub-head "D" which stated that a further sum of £2,400 was required

"On account of additions to the salaries of Tour Law Medical Officers in certain cases, on account of the appointment of some additional Poor Law Medical Officer, and also in consequence of the largely increased expenditure for drugs occasioned by the small-pox epidemic."

replied in the affirmative.

wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether this Vote would apply to the Bill introduced the other night which dealt with rates and payments?

said, the Bill referred to had relation to superannuations, and not to salaries.

said, he thought he had some right to complain of the conduct of the Government in bringing forward this Estimate before the House was in possession of the Appropriation Accounts of last year. Without the information which those Accounts embodied, it was perfectly impossible for the Committee to form any reasonable opinion as to the accuracy of the reasons adduced in these Supplementary Estimates for the voting of the further sums required. Now it struck him that the Public Accounts Committee was utterly unrepresented in the present Committee of Supply, except by the noble Lord the Financial Secretary himself. He gathered that in point of fact the Public Accounts Committee had not yet had an opportunity of forming an opinion; and some years ago a Committee, including the noble Lord, made strong representations in one of their Reports as to the desirability of the information furnished to the Committee being laid before Parliament before these Votes were produced at the beginning of the Session. But the fact was that the House had not had that information. This Vote would illustrate what he meant. Last year a considerable amount of discussion arose as to sums asked for in connection with the Stationery Services, and two or three points especially were dealt with, not only in regard to the printing of the House of Commons generally, but also in regard to the confidential printing of the Foreign Office, and one or two other Departments. At that time the noble Lord told them that the Government had Under consideration some very important alterations in the existing system, which alterations were to bring about a considerable reduction of expense. It would now appear not only that the expenditure had not been reduced, but that the Government were under the necessity of asking for £19,600 more than had originally been asked for. He should feel obliged if the noble Lord would account, if possible, for the delay in issuing the Accounts, and when he did so, perhaps he would also explain what steps the Government had taken to give effect to their promise of last year, and how the matters connected with the Government printing now stood.

said, he thought the hon. Member was mistaken as to the Public Accounts Committee. It had been recommended that a Committee of the House of Commons should make an examination of the public expenditure on printing, &c.; but the Public Accounts Committee had nothing whatever to do with the Estimates. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would use his influence with some of his Colleagues, and enable them to appoint the Committee of Public Accounts at an early date, so that the accounts might be placed before the House at an early period.

said, it was not the appointment of the Public Accounts Committee he referred to, but the Appropriation Accounts, which ought to have been issued to Members.

said, that with respect to the Appropriation Account that was a matter which did not lie with the Treasury; but he would inquire into the subject. He believed that it was not usual to present the Accounts until towards the end of the month; but he would inquire at what date the Accounts could be presented. He was not surprised that this Vote had attracted the attention of the hon. Member. The steady increase of the Vote was most unsatisfactory. There was a very large increase in spite of the strenuous exertions which had been made by the present Controller of the Office. He believed that one great reason for the increase was the mass of Correspondence which in all the Offices was steadily increasing, and which it was impossible to prevent. Over and over again, he had himself been struck by the enormous increase in the Correspondence of the various Offices within the last few years; but, as regarded the business itself, the contracts were on more favourable terms than they used to be, and he believed that the Department was conducted as economically as possible. The expenditure, however, did not depend upon the Controller of the Stationery Office, who had to meet the demands of the Public Offices. He (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had been asked last year if he could not provide more information as to the expenditure of the different Offices in respect of stationery; and he was happy to say that he would shortly be able to present a Report to the House showing the expenditure of the different Offices. A Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament had been appointed to see whether any changes for the better could not be effected. That Committee issued a very valuable Report last year, and recommended that certain changes should be made. He had already given Notice of certain Resolutions with respect to Parliamentary printing; and he hoped, if the House adopted them, that they would lead to greater economy for the future.

asked the noble Lord for further information respecting the Foreign Office printing.

said, it was not an easy matter to check the Foreign Office printing. It was quite true that a high price was paid for it; but hon. Members must recollect that it was of importance that the utmost caution should be exercised. With respect to the documents printed by the Foreign Office, there was good reason for extra payment. The whole of the documents of the Foreign Office were of a confidential nature; and it was a matter of extreme importance, as regarded all our foreign relations, that their confidential character should be preserved. The consequences which might arise from any breach of confidence in that Department made it well worth while to pay something additional for the expense of printing. He could, however, assure the hon. Member that this matter should not be lost sight of, and that the Stationery Office and the Government would do all in their power to curtail the expenditure. At the same time, he thought it would be bad economy to incur any risk of those confidential documents getting out.

said, he did not at all underrate the importance of the confidential printing of the Foreign Office; but it did appear to him strange that certain confidential printing for other Departments as well as the Foreign Office should be performed at a cost of 40 per cent less than that of the Foreign Office. He failed to see that where the work was of an equally confidential character it should be paid for at a different rate.

said, the explanation given as to the effect of these Votes was generally easily understood, and perfectly satisfactory; but it did appear to him that this Vote was of a very improper nature, and unless the explanation was entirely satisfactory he should feel inclined to oppose it altogether. It stated at the end of the Vote that it was

"The amount of special gratuities to two of the Surveyors on the Establishment in respect of the erection from their designs, and under their superintendence, of certain large Public Buildings."

stated that these payments were made in accordance with the recommendation of a Committee of Inquiry in 1876. It had been the general custom in case of very important works to employ a special architect, who received a commission of 5 per cent. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone shook his head.

I shook it because I disputed the principle, not the fact.

Instead of that principle the Committee recommended that, wherever it was possible, one of the Surveyors of the Board of Works should be intrusted with the responsibility of the construction of these buildings, and since that system had been carried out it had answered very well. For the extra responsibility thrown upon them they received a small gratuity. In the course of the present year three important buildings had been completed, namely:—Bow Street Police Court, the Savings Banks Office in Queen Victoria Street, and the Liverpool County Court. These works had been erected under the supervision of the Surveyor of the Board of Works, and the Committee decided that the gentlemen who had been thus employed should receive a small gratuity, which amounted to a sum infinitely smaller than the sum which would have been paid to an architect if an architect had been employed; and, in addition, the work had been better done.

said, this was a question which interested an Irish Member to a certain extent, because a ease of a similar character had occurred in Dublin the other day. It seemed to him, from the explanation given by the noble Lord, that the custom used to be to employ an experienced architect in cases of this nature, whereas the plan now adopted was to employ the ordinary Surveyor connected with the Public Office, and to give him a gratuity instead of having a more experienced man. Now, in this case it seemed to him that the cost would amount very much to the same thing without having the services of so experienced a man.

said, he could assure the hon. Member that the Liverpool County Court and the other buildings cost £91,000, and that 5 per cent upon that sum would have been £4,550, instead of which these Surveyors received £600 for this particular work.

said, that he did not object to the employment of the Surveyor of the Board of Works instead of an architect, in the circumstances which were explained by the noble Lord; but he thought that as it was known when the Estimate was prepared that the Surveyor of the Board of Works was to be employed, the Estimate should have included the remuneration to be given him for the extra work he had to perform.

remarked, that there was a little difficulty in foreseeing at what time the items would come into payment; and they were, therefore, not charged as the work was going on, but only when it was completed.

said, he quite agreed with the desirability of giving some little gratuity to public servants for extra or good work done. It, however, required to be exercised with great care; but he thought the noble Lord ought to include in the Vote the names of the persons who had deserved well of the public. Not only should their names be given, but the amount of remuneration received under each head should be fully stated. He thought such a public proceeding would afford great encouragement to public servants, and do good. Under all the circumstances, he certainly would not think of objecting to the Vote.

said, he had no desire to divide the Committee upon the Vote; but he would like the noble Lord to say that the principle should be avoided in future as far as possible. He thought that if gentlemen were employed in the Public Departments, they ought to receive a commensurate salary for the services they rendered, and should not be led to look forward to gratuities. The salary should cover all the work the public servants had to do. Nothing could be more injurious than holding out the hope that the House of Commons might be induced hereafter to vote an extra sum. The work must certainly be done in the time which ought to be devoted to the public service, and for which a salary was paid, and the principle of paying an extra gratuity for devoting that time to other work was altogether wrong. Nothing could be worse than to lead architects or surveyors to suppose that they were to receive a certain commission or gratuity, according to the extent and value of the work recommended to be done. The principle was a very bad one indeed, and the cost of buildings would run to a far higher figure than if it were provided for and carried out by salaried officers connected with the Department—not paid by commission or gratuity, but by salary only. If the noble Lord would not give an undertaking that some arrangement would be made in future, either to raise the salaries to a commensurate sum, or to employ persons who were not already salaried servants, he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee.

said, the Government had acted entirely upon the recommendation of the Committee of 1876. It was the belief of the Committee that the plan they recommended would lead to economy. The Government adopted the recommenda- tion of the Committee in good faith; and he believed, from what he had heard, that the arrangement worked well. He should be happy, however, if it were the wish of the non. and gallant Member, to inquire into the matter; but he would not like to take upon himself the responsibility of altering the arrangement which had been made, after full inquiry, in 1876.

asked if he was correct in understanding from the noble Lord that the building of the Liverpool County Court was completed?

replied in the affirmative.

said, he was glad the noble Lord had mentioned that fact, because the mention of it had induced him to turn back to the Estimates of last Session, and there he found that the original Estimate for the total cost of the Liverpool County Court was £32,000. Under this arrangement, which the noble Lord said had worked so well, he found that, instead of the work being done for £.32,000, £40,000 had actually been spent; and, therefore, the country had had to pay £8,000 more than was originally asked for, and this was only one of the things which the Surveyor had had in hand.

said, that, if he was not mistaken, the item referred to included some other things besides the cost of building.

said, he wished to avail himself of this opportunity of protesting, in the only way in which it was possible for him to protest, against the establishment of the Lord Lieutenant and Viceroy of Ireland. If he could protest against this establishment in no other way, he intended to protest by dividing" the Committee against it. Last Session he had taken the opportunity of expressing an opinion that the establishment of the Viceroy in Ireland was the centre of demoralization in that country. He was quite sure that in that sentiment he would be echoed by most of the Members from Ireland, with the exception, perhaps, of a few hon. Gentlemen who represented certain interests in Dublin, and who were desirous of maintaining the Viceroyalty from selfish motives—namely, the desire to keep up an institution which, in some way or other, they looked upon as assisting the trade and commerce of that city. He was sure, however, that a great difference of opinion might exist upon that point; and those who had strong feelings in regard to the mode in which Irish affairs were conducted and who viewed the proceedings of the Executive with distrust, must take that opportunity of protesting against the maintenance of the present system of government in that country. When the whole question came on upon the regular Estimates in Supply, there would be a better opportunity of going into details and showing the reasons why the Irish Members protested against this Vote. On the present occasion, it was not necessary to go at length into such arguments, beyond simply stating that the Irish Members protested against the Vote, because it afforded the means of keeping up an establishment which they altogether objected to. For that reason he intended to divide the Committee against the Vote.

said, the Viceroyalty of Ireland was, and had always been, nothing else than a cause of demoralization. He knew many Irishmen who seemed to think that the fact of there being a Viceroy in Ireland was, to some extent, a proof that the Irish were a distinct nation; but he, for one, was quite prepared to dispense with proof of that character, and he should feel it his duty to oppose the Vote on division.

also protested against the Viceregal system. At an earlier period of the Session he had asked leave to introduce a Bill into that House which had for its object the abolition of the Office of Viceroy; but hon. Members would recollect that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland thought it the right course to pursue to commence Obstruction by opposing the introduction of the measure. It had always appeared to him a curious thing, and a matter of wonder, that, even on the supposition that there should be a Lord Lieutenant in Ireland and a Tice-regal Court, the duties of the position should be discharged by an Englishman. He should think that an Irishman would be more proper to fill the Office of Lord Lieutenant than an Englishman. It would be quite intelligible if the Government were to send over to Ireland an Irishman who understood the condition and wants of the country, and who sympathized with the people in their feelings and aspirations. He could understand an appointment of that kind perfectly well. But he could never understand on what principle the Lord Lieutenants of Ireland were selected under the present system. As a rule, they had hitherto been men who were either little known in Ireland or unqualified for the discharge of such duties as were connected with the Office. They were, moreover, men who brought over with them to the country all the prejudices, and, without saying it offensively, he would add, all the narrowness of mind which they possessed as Englishmen. They were on their installation at the Castle of Dublin surrounded by a class of permanent officials, who, whether there was a Liberal or Tory Government in Office, were the persons who actually ruled the destinies of the country; while, as far as he could discern, the duties of the Lord Lieutenant himself consisted in giving a few dinners and balls to the citizens of Dublin, which latter were naturally grateful in view of future entertainments. But what was the feeling throughout the country? He maintained that outside the City of Dublin the Viceroyalty was one of the most unpopular institutions in Ireland. His hon. Colleague the Member for Water-ford (Mr. Leamy) had informed the Committee that there were certain Irishmen who held that the mere fact of there being a Viceroy of Ireland marked the people as belonging to a separate and distinct nation. That might be a correct view of the relations between England and Ireland, so far as it went; but he should be sorry to think that it was the only thing which marked the national distinction which existed. He and his hon. Friends opposed the present Vote on principle, because they felt that the Viceregal institution in Ireland tended to create a miserable, servile, and cringing spirit amongst certain portions of the people; and they opposed it, moreover, on the ground that the people of Ireland did not wish to have a Viceregal Court maintained there. Not only did the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland receive £20,000 a-year for the performance of his duties, but he (Mr. R. Power) observed in the Estimates that the sum of £7,270 was also paid to him for the salaries and expenses of his household. The few remarks upon this subject which he and his hon. Friends had felt it their duty to make were to be regarded as merely by way of protest, because opportunities would present themselves later on in the Session for discussing this question more fully, and in a manner more suited to its importance. On the present occasion, he thought the convenience of the Committee would be best consulted by simply taking a division against the Vote.

pointed out that twice during the last 50 years it had been proposed to abolish the Office of Viceroy of Ireland. On both those occasions the proposal came from a Scotchman; but never during the time referred to had any Irishman come forward to propose the abolition of the Office. On the contrary, when these Motions were brought forward they were opposed by the Representatives of the Irish people. When any hon. Member opposite brought forward a Motion to abolish the Office of Viceroy, he promised to support him, because he believed the Office to be the bane of Ireland; and he trusted that the proposal would meet with success.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) would not press his opposition to a division. He could assure the hon. Member that no one in that House was more opposed to the Office of Viceroy of Ireland than he was, and it was his intention fully to discuss the question when the Vote for the year came forward; but upon the present Vote he should abstain from offering any opposition.

pointed out that the objections taken by Irish Members on the present occasion were not to the Vote itself, but to the principle involved in it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kincardine (Sir George Balfour), in charging Irish Members with not having supported the Motions which had been brought forward for the abolition of the Office of Viceroy of Ireland, had forgotten the material circumstance that, at the time when those Motions were made, Ireland could not be said to be represented in that House. But the hon. and gallant Member would have no cause to make the same remark again, because he assured him that so long as Irishmen were allowed to speak from those Benches this Estimate would be contested. He quite agreed with the remark of the hon. and gallant Member that the Office of Viceroy was the bane of Ireland. Nevertheless, there were many advanced Irishmen who said—"Why not leave the unfortunate Lord Lieutenant alone, for, after all, he spends some money in Ireland?" For his part, however, he regarded the money spent by the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland as a curse to the country. He was willing to admit that Chief Secretary after Chief Secretary went over to Ireland, as did the right hon. Gentleman who at present filled that Office, with honest intentions. But in what quarter did they seek the information necessary for their guidance? It was obtained from the hotbed of the worst form of Toryism in the country—Dublin Castle—and was enmeshed and involved in class prejudice and Party idiosyncrasy. From that centre Ireland was governed, and not only did the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, but all those who preceded him in that Office, derive their information through the medium of the officials at Dublin Castle. It was upon these grounds that Irish Members now opposed the Vote—not because of the amount asked for, which was in itself trivial, but in order to show that, on every occasion, they intended to protest against the Office of Viceroy as coutrary to the national feeling of Ireland.

said, he thought it was rather too much to assert that a certain number of Gentlemen on the opposite Benches alone represented the Irish people, because there were many hon. Members on that side of the House who had a voice in the representation of Ireland. It was worth while, on the part of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Metge), to observe that if he would study the history of the Irish people he would find, whatever might he the vices of the Office, that the first Viceroy who recommended the institution of an Irish Parliament was Lord Chester- field, to whom Ireland was indebted for the events of 1782 more than anyone else. Moreover, he would find that Lord Fitzwilliam was the first person who, as Viceroy, recommended the emancipation of Irish Catholics.

observed, that, although the subject of the Vote was one on which a good deal was to be said, he did not consider that the present occasion was a proper one for its discussion. When the proper time arrived he would be in a position to show that the feeling of the country was in favour of the retention of the Viceroyalty.

admitted the subject of this Vote was one which had been very much debated, and on which a good deal was to be said, and that different opinions with regard to it were held by Gentlemen who, generally speaking, entertained the same political views as him self; for, as he had already stated, there were some who thought that the mere fact that the Office of Viceroy existed in Ireland was an indication to the people of England that the Irish people were a distinct nation. But, holding the views which he held with regard to that Office, he felt bound to seize every opportunity of recording his vote in favour of its abolition. As to the remark of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers),that it was too much to assort that a certain number of Gentlemen on these Benches alone represented the Irish people, he would remind the Committee that within the last few days Ireland had given a very significant proof that, at any rate, if hon. Members on these Benches were not the sole Representatives of the people of Ireland, the people whom they did represent would shortly become the dominant Party in Irish politics. He referred to the return by an Irish constituency as their Representative of a man whom the English Government had thought fit to send to the Convict Prison at Portland. That circumstance was, he thought, sufficient to show that the public opinion of his country was going beyond the views of hon. Members near him, and that men even more advanced than they would be the future Representatives of Ireland. The hon. and learned Professor the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had referred to the initiative taken in certain political matters by two of the former Viceroys of Ireland, in reply to which he would only say that the mere fact that one or two men who had filled the Viceregal Office might have been friends of Irish independence did not of itself make that Office necessary to Irish freedom.

remarked, that the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) was nothing if not historical. He was willing to admit that Lord Chesterfield was, perhaps, the best Viceroy ever sent over from England to Ireland; but he would like to ask the hon. Member how many of Lord Chesterfield's views were carried out, and of what use to Ireland were his abilities? Why, he had been of no more use to Ireland than the right hon. Gentleman who had recently been gent there. And then with regard to Lord Fitzwilliam, the hon. Member would know that he was recalled on account of his suggestions, and that his recall was one of the causes that led to the Rebellion of 1798. The truth was that the Office of Viceroy was of no manner of use in serving the country, while it did some negative harm by creating a false public opinion and a spirit of flunkeyism. The City of Dublin had been well described by an Englishman as the capital of flunkeyism; and, as a matter of fact, the Office conferred but a mock distinction, while the Court which surrounded it was merely a sham. He would not detain the Committee at greater length on that occasion, but he looked forward to the time when the question of the Irish Viceroyalty would be fully debated in the House of Commons; and even now he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) would persevere and carry his opposition to a division, for although the amount of the money was small, he was glad that it had been the means of enabling his hon. Colleagues to protest against the principle involved in the Vote.

rose to oppose the Vote. He had not addressed the House during the present Session upon any subject connected with Irish affairs; but he felt himself compelled, by the circumstances of the case, to protest in the strongest manner against one single sovereign, or, indeed, a single penny, being paid to the so-called Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. That official was certainly not a Lord Lieutenant in a representative sense, and all the his- torical reminiscences which the learned Professor sitting upon the Whig Benches opposite could bring forward in that House in favour of ancient and forgotten Lord Lieutenants was of no use, and had no application whatever in the present discussion upon a matter of expenditure in Ireland. The Lord Lieutenancy was a complete farce. It was one of those things which were commonly known as a fraud upon the people. He assured hon. Members that, however much it might be objected to in certain circles, the Irish Members sitting on the Opposition Benches represented the Irish nation. If the landlords of Ireland and the officials at Dublin Castle were left out of the question it would be found that those Members were the real and actual Representatives of the people of Ireland. They objected, and they appealed to other hon. Members to object, to the payment of a large salary to a man who had really nothing to do with the government of Ireland as far as regarded its welfare. He spent his time and money, or rather the money which he received from England, in giving nice little semi-official parties, and in entertaining all the would - be aristocracy of Irish landlordism and society. He sincerely trusted the Committee would oppose the payment of any money derived from English taxation to that personage called the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whose Office in Ireland was simply a mockery and a delusion, and whose presence there was a sham. He would be very sorry that any amount drawn from the pockets of the people of England should be expended in keeping up such a mockery in the City of Dublin as the Lord Lieutenancy, surrounded by its circle of official hacks. He was not prepared to deny that the Lord Lieutenant was a very able man. With 50,000 troops at his command his position very much resembled that of a Turkish Pasha; but as to his being a Governor in the proper sense of the term, or interesting himself in the Government of Ireland, no such argument could be supported either in theory or in fact. He hoped that the learned Professor (Mr. Thorold Rogers), who had never expressed any friendly feeling towards Ireland, or, as far as he knew, said anything in favour of Irish, nationality, would re-read the history of the Irish people, with a view to making his historical references more applicable and somewhat correct.

said, as the present Vote was almost a corollary to that which preceded it, the opposition offered to it by Irish Members would be consequential. The Office of Chief Secretary was one which would follow that of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the latter were abolished, as he hoped it soon would be. The abolition of the Chief Secretaryship and the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland was a proposition which had over and over again been put forward in the House of Commons within the last 50 years. It was made in 1824 by Mr. Hume, who again brought it forward in 1830, and in 1850 Lord John Russell introduced a Bill for the abolition of these Offices, upon which occasion every one of the then Conservative Chief Secretaries for Ireland voted in favour of the measure. He had forgotten the names of those Gentlemen; but there were six of them in existence at the time, and all of them were in favour of the abolition of the Office. They proceeded merely on the question of principle which was then before them. But at the present day Irish Members had very much stronger and more pressing reasons which induced them to oppose not only the Office of Chief Secretary itself, but its present occupier, and to desire its complete abolition. If the English people were wise they would, he thought, insist upon the present holder of the Office being relegated to some post in their own country, where he would not be able to accomplish the amount of harm which he had been doing in Ireland. He was sure he was not exaggerating when he said that there had never been a statesman since the time of Castlereagh who had helped to make the British connection so hateful to the people of Ireland as it had now become under the present Chief Secretary; and the amount of animosity, hatred, and irreconcilable opposition that the right hon. Gentleman had caused in the minds of the great majority of the Irish people towards the British connection was such as would require many years to wipe away. But it had been said by some that the present Chief Secretary for Ireland entered upon his Office with the very best intentions. He did not seek to judge of the intentions of any man, and it was perfectly impossible to fathom the mind of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but the right hon. Gentleman must and would be judged according to his acts, and it was a fact that not only had he assumed, in the discharge of the more painful and more important duties of his Office, a bearing towards the Irish people which had excited an amount of enmity and opposition, but in his dealings with deputations that had waited upon him in connection with subjects of very great importance to the different sections of people in Ireland, his bearing had been so flippant and off-handed that the members of the deputations often retired disgusted and indignant. But supposing that the Chief Secretary had merely carried out the commands of his Colleagues—because, of course, the Lord lieutenant was a man of no authority; not being a Member of the Cabinet he was obliged to refer to it in all cases, and it was hardly possible to discover whether the Chief Secretary was superior or subordinate to him. The right hon. Gentleman had signed a number of warrants for the committal to prison of a number of innocent men in Ireland under circumstances of such a character that, were there nothing else against him than the way in which that power had been exercised, it would in itself be quite sufficient to justify Irish Members in opposing everything in the shape of a Vote of public money for any purpose connected with the Chief Secretary's Department. The way in which those warrants had been issued; the character of the men who had been arrested; the mode in which the arrests had been made; and the monstrously unjustifiable proceedings that had been taken under the Coercion Act in connection with those warrants, were such as must necessarily breed in 500 cen- tres throughout Ireland, where before there had existed the most patriotic ardour, the most rebellious feelings against the Crown and the Administration. That was part of the Chief Secretary's work. He might, perhaps, be thought to speak on this subject with a certain amount of personal feeling, because it had been alleged that a warrant had been issued for his own arrest. He had never seen the warrant, and he was not aware of his own knowledge that it was in existence; but he had been told that he was charged with being reasonably suspected of treasonable practices. He did not know anything about that; but he was sure that if a warrant had been signed charging him with treasonable practices, that warrant was a lie, and nothing would ever induce him to believe that anyone could sign it without knowing that it was a lie. Therefore, knowing that many men as innocent as himself of treasonable practices had been arrested in Ireland under warrants of the same character, and believing that a large number of persons had been so deprived of their liberty without the least colour or ground of justification, he said, under those circumstances, it would be impossible for him ever to assent, as a Member of that House, to the voting of public money in respect of any Office with which such a man as the Chief Secretary was connected. He therefore trusted his hon. Friends would accompany him into the Lobby in opposition to the Vote.

also opposed the Vote. He observed there was a sum of £900 under this Estimate which represented a charge of about £2 for each of the warrants issued against "suspects" in Ireland. He would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, before the present discussion came to an end, whether there was any truth in the allegation that he had sent blank warrants for the arrest of "suspects" to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, or other magistrates in Ireland. He felt it his duty to oppose this Vote as a protest against the conduct of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had in prison at the present time, under the operation of the Coercion Act, a number of gentlemen, of whom he might say that he believed them to be as innocent of treasonable practices as was the hon. Member who had just spoken, and who had spoken the truth. The hon. Member for Queen's County had spoken the truth in denying that he had been guilty of treasonable practices, and who would venture to contradict him, or come forward and prove his guilt? He challenged the Government to do this; and it was well known that if the hon. Member for Queen's County were guilty of treasonable practices, he could be arrested, as any man could be in England, as well as in Ireland. But how had the charges of treasonable practices been made out against the gentlemen who were in prison? He had listened the other night with considerable interest to the best excuse the Government were able to make for them. They admitted that there was nothing in the text of the speeches of those gentlemen that could justify their arrest; but, said the Attorney General for Ireland—"You must read between the lines;" and the Chief Secretary, alluding to a sentence or two that had been spoken, said—"It looks innocent enough, but we must see what is meant by it." And it was upon his own forced and unreasonable construction of the language employed that he sought to arrest gentlemen on what he called reasonable suspicion, and keep them many months in gaol. Against such a procedure as that Irish Members were bound to protest. They were bound, to the utmost of their ability, to refuse to pay salaries to gentlemen who did this atrocious work in Ireland. Throughout the whole of the discussions which had taken place upon the subject of these arrests, he had heard no defence of the policy and action of the Government that would pass muster in any fair and impartial Assembly, although the so-called defence which had been put forward in that House had passed with a number of hon. Members, who were bound to the Government by Party ties. The policy of the Government might be consistent with the feelings of Liberal Gentlemen, but it was not so with the feelings of Irish Members; nor was it consistent with what was fair and just to the people of the country. Irish Members were compelled by a sense of duty to oppose this, and all such Votes, to the full extent of their power; and he should, therefore, cordially support his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County in his opposition to the Motion,

I merely rise for the purpose of making two explanations, or, rather, of contradicting two statements. There is absolutely no foundation for the statement that blank warrants have been issued. The hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Sullivan) seems to be under the impression that this Vote is for an increase of salary to the Chief Secretary. That is not the ease.

said, the Irish Members on those Benches felt it their duty to offer opposition to this Vote for two reasons, perfectly distinct from each other. The first of these was that they desired to enter a protest against the system under which Chief Secretaries for Ireland were appointed at all; and that reason was in itself, to his mind, entirely sufficient. But there was also the ground for opposition alluded to by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor)—namely, that every one of his hon. Colleagues had cause to believe that in the conduct of his duties in Ireland the present Chief Secretary—of course, when he spoke of him he spoke of his subordinates in Office also—had been guilty of gross negligence on matters of the very gravest importance. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) mentioned a suspicion in his mind that Irish Members on those Benches did not represent the Irish people. He (Mr. Redmond) would like to appeal, if he could, from the hon. Member for Southwark to other hon. Members in that House, who probably knew at least as much as the learned Professor about Ireland and its people, because he was convinced that there was not an Irishman on the opposite Benches who would deny that the Party with whom he had the honour to act did represent the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland. Was not the election for the County of Meath evidence of the force of the opinions which they represented in that House?

I must remind the hon. Member for New Ross that we are discussing a Vote for the Department of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and not the state of political feeling in Ireland.

said he was endeavouring to combat the idea that the Irish Members, in making these protests, did not represent the opinion of the people of Ireland. If he was out of Order in that course he would desist.

I have already reminded the hon. Member that the Vote is for the Chief Secretary, and does not refer to the recent election.

said, he would pass from that matter, merely observing that they had had strong evidence within the last few days——

rose to Order, and asked whether the authority of the Chair was to be disregarded?

I have not yet heard what it is the hon. Member intends to say.

said, he was about to say, when he was interrupted, that he would pass from that line with the single remark that there had been evidence within the last few days that the course they were taking in opposing the Vote for the Chief Secretary was a line of action supported by public opinion in Ireland. That was a statement which he thought he was in Order in making; and he thought if hon. Members opposite would be a little patient, and not interrupt other hon. Members, they would expedite the progress of Business. The first reason for protesting against this Vote was a desire to protest against a system utterly rotten and unsound—a system of government, whereby the men who were responsible for the government of Ireland were in no sense responsible to the people of Ireland; a system whereby the right hon. Gentleman who governed Ireland was in no sense responsible in the slightest degree to the people; a system whereby the people were ruled, not in accordance with their wishes, which was the correct definition of representative government, but in direct opposition to their wishes and to the wishes of their elected Representatives in Parliament. That was one reason why they objected to this Vote. The other reason for objecting was that they had evidence, which they could adduce, that the right hon. Gentleman, in the administration of half his duties in Ireland—namely, the carrying out of the Coercion Act, had been guilty of gross neglect, and of gross violations of the pledges he solemnly gave in that House. There were many things in connection with the administration of the Coercion Act which could be alluded to as reasons why the Irish Members could not countenance any extra Vote for the Chief Secretary or his subordinates. Mention had been made of the issue of warrants. Less than three weeks ago a warrant was issued for the arrest of his (Mr. Redmond's) brother. A copy of that warrant had been sent to him, and in that warrant his brother was described as "Redmond "—without any initials—"of Liverpool"—a place where he had never been. Was not that an evidence that the right hon. Gentleman had been guilty of a gross violation of the pledge he and his Colleagues gave, that they would investigate every individual case? In Common Law he had no doubt that warrant would be utterly invalid, and he believed that if he chose to have a motion made in the Court of Queen's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus he could have his brother released. Of course, his brother would be re-arrested under a good warrant; but he would rather his brother should rot in prison than take advantage of any such technicality. [A laugh.] The hon. Member (Mr. Thorold Rogers) might laugh, and no doubt it was consistent with the hon. Member's ideas of decency to laugh at such a matter; but he would tell the hon. Member, and other English Members, that the Irish people had as great a contempt for their laughs as it was possible to have. They cared nothing for these jeers and laughs, and the only effect of them was to intensify that feeling of disaffection which was spreading in Ireland, and which the Chief Secretary and his officials had been working to deepen and strengthen. This case of his brother's was one matter connected with the issue of warrants, and he was certain there were many other cases of equally gross negligence; and he would like the right hon. Gentleman, or someone else on the Treasury Bench, to give some explanation of the issue of a warrant for taking away a man's liberty, in which the man was described in that vague way—without any initials, and as of Liverpool, where he never had been. Then there were other matters. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the issue of these warrants. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER assented.] He was glad to know that was the case, for he was anxious to keep in Order, if possible. A number of his friends in the county of Wexford had been arrested under war- rants issued by the right hon. Gentleman, and he would mention, as one instance, the case of a highly respectable gentleman, named Ennis, who lived 10 miles from the nearest railway-station. His house was surrounded, at 10 o'clock one night, by policemen; after a delay of only a few moments, he was put on an outside car and driven about along country roads and bye lanes from one station to another, until half-past 7 the following morning. The reason alleged for this, when he protested, was that some demonstration of public sympathy or enthusiasm might arise if it were known where he was. Why the police did not arrest him an hour before there was a train and take him straight to the station, he (Mr. Redmond) could not tell; but, instead of that, he was driven about on an outside car, on a cold, wet night, till half-past 7 in the morning, and received no food until half-past 1 o'clock, when he was lodged in Kilmainham Gaol. Was not that a brutal exercise of arbitrary power? The obvious answer of the right hon. Gentleman would be that he was not responsible for these details; but these were details which closely touched the friends of the victims of this barbarous administration of the Coercion Act, and the right hon. Gentleman was the only person in the House who was responsible for the execution of these warrants. Then there were other things. A few days ago, he asked a Question in the House with reference to the release of a gentleman named Mahon, of New Ross. Why, although that gentleman was unconditionally released from Kilmainham Prison, the Sub-Inspector of New Ross had called upon him and told him that unless he left the country within a week he would be re-arrested? He had been released because his life was in danger; because the doctor of the gaol, Dr. Carte, and Dr. Kenny had united in a Report that prolonged imprisonment would almost certainly sacrifice his life. He was released; but his health continued bad, for he was not suffering from some temporary ailment, but from lung disease, and he was as ill three weeks after his release as when he was released. He took no part in the proceedings of the Land League, although, in the discharge of his duties as a reporter to a Wexford newspaper, he attended certain Laud League meetings, sheriffs' sales, and evictions. Yet, for earning his livelihood in the only possible way, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he had been guilty of action in connection with the Land League. That was a cruel and wanton act, and the effect had been this—his ailment having been intensified by imprisonment, his friends told him when he left Kilmainham Gaol that he should leave that climate. He made arrangements for starting for Australia on the 9th of March; but, although this was known to the police—for a clergyman in the place had told them—he was told that unless he left the country at once he would be re-arrested. The result of that was that he was obliged to leave Wexford hurriedly, without time to make his preparations, for he was liable at any moment to re-arrest, which, to him, would have meant the grave. He (Mr. Redmond) had no desire to raise trivial matters in the House, or to carp at the right hon. Gentleman; but he was there to express his conviction—a conviction which he knew was shared by his constituents—that there never had been a Chief Secretary who had done more harm to the English connection with Ireland than the present Chief Secretary. [Dissent.] Did hon. Members who dissented from that sentiment imagine for one moment that the 500 men who had been arrested would come out of prison more loyal than when they went in? Did they imagine that the friend sand relatives of those men would be more loyal to the British connection after seeing honourable and upright men dragged away like felons and lodged in prison cells? The right hon. Gentleman had not only done harm to the British connection; but, although it was a matter scarcely worth referring to, he had utterly ruined his own reputation. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members probably objected to that statement, because they thought the right hon. Gentleman never had a reputation to destroy. He was under the impression, when the right hon. Gentleman went to take the reins of power in Ireland, that he had a reputation as a fair-minded, honest, and capable statesman. He now had the reputation, so far as the Irish people were concerned—and he (Mr. Redmond; cared not so much for the opinion of the majority of that House—of a dishonest politician.

The hon. Member has no right to impute dishonesty to any Member of this House.

said, he would, of course, withdraw the expression; but what he meant by dishonesty was the violation of pledges given to the House. In that sense he was regarded as a dishonest politician; he was regarded, moreover, as an unjust man who had taken advantage of power which had been placed in his hands for mean and petty purposes, and had used that power in an arbitrary and cruel manner; and, so far as Ireland was concerned, he had proved himself an utterly incapable man. No Chief Secretary of Ireland had ever brought the country into such an inextricable state of confusion as the right hon. Gentleman had. So long as the right hon. Gentleman left the Land League alone, the League had in no way created any confusion. He had read a few minutes ago a quotation from the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the second reading of the Coercion Act, in which he said the effect of the Act was being felt in Ireland before it was passed, and that the outrages were diminishing because the Act was coming into play, and the Leaders of the Land League were using all the power they possessed to put down outrage. Those were the words the right hon. Gentleman used; and if outrages had since taken place, and the hatred of England had been intensified, that was all to be laid at the door of the right hon. Gentleman, who was a weak, dishonest, incapable statesman.

I have already informed the hon. Member that the application of the word "dishonest" to a Member of this House is un-Parliamentary. I call upon him to withdraw it.

I at once withdraw it. I only used the word in the sense I stated.

I do not rise, Sir, to make any personal defence. If my reputation cannot take care of itself I shall not attempt to sustain it. The hon. Member says no other Irish Chief Secretary has done more harm than I have. There is no Irish Secretary who ever had the task of the present Irish Secretary to perform. There is no Irish Secretary who has Lad to contend with such a number of Members of Parliament and other men of influence who are doing all that is in their power to keep up a conspiracy against law and order.

rose to Order, and asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in charging Members of the House with combining to keep up a conspiracy against law and order?

Mr. Forster.

I am quite content with my statement as to the attitude of Members of this House. That is all I wish to say with regard to the attack and remarks of the hon. Gentleman on the general question. Already in this Session this subject has been debated, and probably will be debated again; but there are two or three special remarks of the hon. Member to which I wish to allude. First, it is true—and I am sorry for it—that in the performance of what I considered to be our duty in carrying out the Act, we have had to arrest the brother of the hon. Member. The hon. Member says there is a technical mistake in the warrant as to his brother's previous residence. As to that I cannot speak; but I can say that the grounds for the arrest were most carefully considered, and I believed we should have had no justification for not making the arrest. The hon. Member alludes to two other cases. I wish to state—and I appeal to the Committee whether it is not so—that it would be impossible for me, or anyone, to be ready with answers upon cases without any Notice. No Notice was given of any Question with regard to the arrest of the person named Ennis; and my obvious answer to this case is that I know nothing of the circumstances of the arrest. I do not admit the correctness of the hon. Member's account of the matter; but if he will give Notice of a Question, and give me reasonable time to obtain information, I shall be ready to answer him. The other case is that of a man named Mahon, who, the hon. Member says, was released because his life was in danger, and who has been obliged to leave the country. It is an exaggeration to say that his life was considered to be in danger; but his health was such that we thought it desirable to release him. I do not expect hon. Members to give me credit for this assertion; but I am sure no person in my position could have listened more to statements of ill-health than I have, and if I have erred, it has been in giving too much attention to these statements. We had reason to believe that this person was returning to the course he had previously followed, and we had our idea of his ill-health somewhat shaken by the fact that he could walk seven or eight miles without any difficulty immediately after his release.

said, he wished to read the passage in the Chief Secretary's speech to which he had alluded. On the second reading of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act the right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said—

"Already, I say, we see signs of a diminution in the number of outrages. The improvement at first was only slight; but the outrages are now becoming smaller in number every day. And why are they diminishing? I believe there are two reasons for it. One is that the Gentlemen at the head of the Land League are using every power they possess to put a stop to outrages."—[3 Hansard, cclvii. 1230.]

said, he thought the Attorney General for Ireland or the Solicitor General for Ireland might inform the Committee whether or not the warrant under which the hon. Member's brother had been arrested was a defective warrant; and whether it was not the fact that instances were to be found in which men about to be apprehended on warrants which did not give their Christian names had killed those attempting to arrest them, and had been held to be justified in doing so?

said, the warrant was a perfectly good one for technical purposes; and he believed it contained, besides the name Redmond, the aliases Munroe and Boyd.

denied that statement, for he had a copy of the warrant, and it did not contain those names.

replied that, according to his impression, those aliases were in the warrant, and those were the aliases by which the person was known.

said, he thought he might draw the attention of the Committee away from these rather heated questions, which did not seem to him to be suitable for discussion at that moment, to some points more directly connected with the actual expenditure of money in Ireland. He observed in this Vote for the Office of the Chief Secretary a point upon which he would like to ask a question. He did not know whether the Committee and the Chief Secretary would think him hypercritical; but he wished to know whether precedent had been followed in heading this Vote—"Chief Secretary for Ireland." He did not believe that the title "Chief Secretary for Ireland "had ever before been used in a public document. The title had always been "Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant." There was much more in that than people might suppose. If it was proposed to abolish the Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the title in the Vote might be correct; if not, his question was not superfluous, and he supposed the Government had some reason for making the change. Then there was an item of £900 in the Vote for additions to the staff of the Office, and for some extra expenditure which had been sanctioned by the Treasury consequent on an important increase of business. He had paid a visit to Ireland in the winter, and he was then informed on authority, which he believed to be good, that an officer of the Guards—Mr. Ross, of Bladensburg—had been appointed Military Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. If that was so he wished to know on "what precedent such an appointment had been made, because he was prepared to maintain that never before, since the Union, had the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant required such an officer; and he was, moreover, prepared to maintain that the Office of Military Secretary to the Chief Secretary was one altogether abnormal in its character. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had absolutely nothing to do with the movement of troops in Ireland. He had no control over them, and properly no relations with the Forces; and if any functionary in Ireland was to have a Military Secretary it was the Lord Lieutenant, who was at the head of the troops in Ireland. He could not conceive on what ground the Chief Secretary appointed Mr. Ross Military Secretary without first of all coming to Parliament for its sanction. It was a totally new office, and was one calculated to put aside the authority of the Lord Lieutenant in military matters; in fact, this was an attempt to treat the Lord Lieutenant as a perfect dummy or ornamental figurehead, and to set up the Office of Chief Secretary as superior to that of the Lord Lieutenant. What he wanted to know was, whether Mr. Ross, of Bladensburg, was appointed by the Chief Secretary as his Military Secretary, or something analogous to it, in order that he might act as an intermediary between him and the Commander of the Forces? If so, what position did the Chief Secretary take up with respect to the movement of troops in Ireland? Were the orders for the movement of troops conveyed from the Chief Secretary direct to the Commander of the Forces, or were they conveyed, as they only could be Constitutionally conveyed, by the order of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? On that point the Chief Secretary was bound to give them information, because the appointment of a Military Secretary to the Chief Secretary was quite an innovation, and altogether altered the character of the Office of Chief Secretary. He also wished explanation in regard to another matter. The other day there was a letter in the newspapers, signed by a very well-known Irishman—Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald. He was well known to be an active member of the Property Defence Association; and in his letter, which had attracted a good deal of attention, he stated, as a fact, that it had been intimated to the Property Defence Association that evictions in Ireland, if they were to be carried out with the aid of the military, were to be carried out on a very large and comprehensive scale; that they were to comprise, if necessary, districts, townlands, or baronies; that groups of tenants were to be evicted, because it was not convenient for the military authorities to make great preparations and arrangements for the eviction of a single tenant here and there; that, in order to meet the great movement against the payment of rent, the Government of Ireland signified to those connected with the Property Defence Association that evictions were to be carried out on an immense scale, and that great numbers of people were to be simultaneously turned out on the roadside. The Chief Secretary ought to take the present opportunity of informing the Committee whether these statements were accurate or otherwise. In his (Lord Randolph Churchill's) opinion, evictions in Ireland ought to be judged on their merits; and he had always understood that the landlords of Ireland were anxious to evict those tenants who could but would not pay, and to spare, if possible, those tenants who could not pay on account of the distressed times. Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald alluded to a large number of evictions which were going to take place almost immediately in Donegal; and he asked what was to be done, or what preparations were being made for the actual sustenance of the 4,000 or 5,000 persons who were to be turned out on the roadside? If any intimation of the nature described by Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald, either directly or indirectly, had been given by the Government to the Property Defence Association, it was the duty of the House of Commons to criticize their conduct most severely, because nothing could be more cruel than that, for the sake of military convenience, innocent people should be punished with the guilty. If it was necessary to evict the dishonest tenant, surely it was not necessary, or even human, to evict the tenants who were honest, and who, perhaps, were only unable to pay by the circumstances of the time. He would not have drawn attention to this point merely on the strength of the letter of Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald; but he thought it right to tell the Chief Secretary that when he was in Ireland, after last Christmas Day, he found it was the talk of the Clubs—it was the talk of persons in official and in ex-official positions, and of many persons who were in a position to know perfectly well what they were talking about—that the Chief Secretary was anxious to induce the landlords of Ireland to ask him to carry out evictions on a very large scale. He did not consider he was doing the Government an ill turn in mentioning this. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite were premature in that expression. Positive statements to the effect he had stated had appeared in The Standard newspaper; those statements were made by a very prominent member of the Landlords' Defence Association, and the Chief Secretary was bound to get up and say whether it was the intention of the Government not to lend assistance to landlords who wished to evict tenants who, from their know- ledge, were certainly dishonest tenants, who were able to pay but declined to do so, unless the landlords were prepared, at the same time, to evict a large number of tenants who were not dishonest, but who were only prevented from paying by the necessities of the time? The Committee was bound to take notice of the matter. He was quite prepared to admit that never had a Chief Secretary so difficult a task to perform before; but he could not help noticing that all the great panegyrics passed on the Chief Secretary by his Chief and his Colleagues were generally coupled with insinuations of a more or less vituperative character against the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor. They were told that Ireland was being governed on strictly philanthropic principles; but he wanted to know, if statements of the kind he had quoted were made in the newspapers by Irish Gentlemen—if those statements were supported by the general assent and opinion of Dublin society—if evictions were being carried out in a manner which he could only characterize as barbarous and heartless—he wanted to know on what ground the philanthropy of the right hon. Gentleman rested? He objected to the assumptions of superhuman righteousness on the part of the Government, and especially when they were coupled with insinuations of superhuman wickedness on the part of their Predecessors. He hoped the Chief Secretary would notice the three points he had raised—the denomination of his Office, the appointment of a Military Secretary, and the support given to a wholesale system of eviction.

said, that, if what the noble Lord had stated was the prevalent impression in Irish society, he was not sorry an opportunity had been afforded him of explaining matters. He understood the noble Lord to say that when he came in contact with Irish society he learned that what he had stated was the fact. No doubt, he had learned a good many things; indeed, if the noble Lord believed all he heard, he must certainly have his head full of very strange and contradictory assertions. The noble Lord stated that he was informed that he (Mr. W. E. Forster), on behalf of the Government, had led the landlords of Ireland to believe that they would encourage them to make evictions wholesale, quite irrespective of the ability of the persons to pay their rent, and quite irrespective of the honesty or dishonesty of the tenants.

Yes; that is the statement in The Standard.

said, that was a statement he absolutely denied. He imagined that if such a report was prevalent it arose in this manner—that they found many evictions would take place; they found they would have to protect the civil authority in carrying out those evictions, and what he did do—he did not know he ever did it officially, though he made no secret of it—was to inform the persons who thought it necessary to proceed against their tenants that it would be much better if, after they had made up their minds to evict, they would act in concert, so that they could with the least expenditure of force support them. He thought they were perfectly justified in so acting; their action was justifiable from an economical point of view; it was justifiable in the interest of the preservation of order and of mercy. ["Oh!"] Yes, as an act of mercy. It was their duty to support the force of the law; it was also their duty to do it with the least chance of the destruction of life. That it should be done with the least chance of the destruction of life an overpowering force must accompany the sheriff; and it would be almost impossible to send an overpowering force unless there was some kind of previous arrangement as to when, and how, and where it should be sent. His action could never be interpreted to mean that they encouraged landlords to take proceedings where they did not wish; it could not mean that they encouraged the landlords to take proceedings against those whom they had better let alone; it did not mean they were to take proceedings indiscriminately against the honest and the dishonest. What his action really did mean was that if the landlords were determined to carry out evictions they must let the Executive know when and how they proposed to do it, so that if there were two or three landlords in one district one force would suffice for all the cases. That was the line they took, and they were quite justified. The noble Lord had spoken about the denomination of the Office of Chief Secretary. If lie would refer to the Estimates, he would see that a Supplementary Estimate was required to pay the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He hoped that would satisfy the noble Lord. As to Mr. Ross, he was appointed as temporary Assistant Private Secretary. The reason why he was glad of Mr. Boss's services was this—that they were obliged to make a good deal of use of the Military Forces in Ireland. There had, no doubt, been a great deal of exaggeration about the strength of the Military Force in that country. He had seen it stated there were 50,000 troops there; some people said there were 60,000; but the force really numbered under 30,000. The Chief Secretary and the heads of the Military Department had to be constantly in communication with one another. For instance, it was necessary to send a detachment of troops to a certain place, and it was desirable they should have some means of finding out where and the quickest and most economical manner in which that detachment could be lodged. They found that the two Departments, the Commander-in-Chief's Department and the Executive Department, could work better together, and that there would be a great saving of time and money if they engaged a gentleman for a short time to conduct this communication.

said, he did not think his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) had been altogether fair in his criticism of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He did not for a moment pretend to know so much as the noble Lord on many subjects which he discussed in the House—it would be absurd for him to pretend to do so—but on one subject he must say he did know as much, and perhaps a little more, than his noble Friend, and that was on the subject of Ireland. He had resided in Ireland for a considerable time since the close of last Session, and he was in Ireland at the time mentioned by the noble Lord. He visited several parts of Ireland and mixed in various grades of society; but he was bound to say he never heard one word from any single person in Ireland imputing to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary the policy mentioned by his noble Friend. He had no doubt that at the commencement of his term of Office the right hon. Gentleman did not perform the duties of Chief Secretary in a way in which many gentlemen resident in Ireland considered he ought to have done; but for that he (Lord Claud Hamilton) never for one moment considered the right hon. Gentleman responsible. He considered, though it was a matter of course of opinion, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and the two right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Birmingham (Mr. Bright and Mr. Chamberlain) were responsible for preventing the right hon. Gentleman performing his duties in a proper and efficient manner. But now the right hon. Gentleman was at last attempting to perform his duties in a thorough and satisfactory manner, and endeavouring to enforce the law and sustain the rights of property, he was really surprised to see the noble Lord below the Gangway coming down to the House and adopting the attitude towards the right hon. Gentleman that he had just displayed. They all felt the right hon. Gentleman had had a most difficult and most painful duty to perform in Ireland; they who lived in Ireland deeply sympathized with him in the performance of those many painful duties; and he (Lord Claud Hamilton) would always be prepared, when he saw the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the great opposition with which he was met in the House and elsewhere, striving to perform his duty to his Sovereign and his country, to give him his cordial support.

said, if the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, he thought——

said, there was no doubt of it; he was the Member for Liverpool.

said, he believed the Home Rulers of Liverpool voted for the noble Lord. If the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool had ventured his strong contradiction of the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), of whom he spoke in so friendly a manner, previous to the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, there would have been considerably more weight in the contradiction. Unfortunately, the statement of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool just came one speech too late, and that speech was the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; for between the charge of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock and the indignant repu- diation of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, there was just as much difference as there was between a non-official and an official explanation of the same case. In all its essentials, in all its parts, the defence of the Chief Secretary confirmed the statements of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. The noble Lord stated that he had heard plenty of confirmation in Ireland of the statements made by Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald in the columns of The Standard—namely, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland objected to furnish military escorts to single landlords engaged in limited eviction operations, but that he was quite prepared to supply an overwhelming force, if only a considerable number of landlords would combine, and, by one huge act of Cossackism, clear a whole country side. That was the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself. The only defence of this co-operative policy started by the right hon. Gentleman was that he did it for the purposes of mercy, and to prevent destruction of life, and for economy, of course; but the latter, being a stock Liberal topic, he would reserve for some general observations on Liberalism. It was the opinion of the Chief Secretary that, if they went out with a considerable force in order to protect the civil power, and to evict whole country sides, there would be less chance of resistance than if they went with a weaker force to a single eviction. Let them suppose that, instead of evictions in the wilds of Ireland, evictions were to be carried out in an English town. He asked if it would not be more conducive to the preservation of peace to pick out, as the cases naturally arose, the individuals who were considered deserving of eviction than to wait until half-a-dozen streets could be cleared out with one fell swoop? The Chief Secretary's theory that there would be less danger to life and property, less danger of fearful rioting, less heartrending scenes, by the clearance of a whole district rather than by picking out isolated cases, afforded the Committee a pretty fair specimen of the whole power of the right hon. Gentleman's intelligence. Mr. Ross, of Bladensburg, whose official designation was T.A.P.S.C.S.L.L., or Temporary Assistant Private Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, seemed to be a sort of parallel to that Major Bond, the ornamental swearer, who was explained to be T.A.S.S.M., or Temporary Assistant Special Stipendiary Magistrate. Since the days of Alfred Smith, with whom O'Connell dealt somewhat irreverently, there had been no such creator of official nicknames as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Putting the explanation of the Chief Secretary along with the corroborative evidence of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool—for there could be no mistaking the corroboration contained in the tones of thorough satisfaction with which the noble Lord regarded the recent operations of the Chief Secretary—putting all those things together, they had a very fair explanation of the position of the new military assistant of the Chief Secretary. It was said in Ireland that whenever the Chief Secretary was applied to on any question, he always referred the applicant to his conscience. They had been greatly puzzled to know where his conscience was; and it now turned out it was represented by Mr. Ross, of Bladensburg, T.A.P.S.C.S.L.L. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had deserved, and had certainly obtained, the warm thanks of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool. Now, the noble Lord was a member of a family holding, according to the English law, large estates in the county of Donegal; and he (Mr. O'Donnell) could fully understand the satisfaction of the noble Lord that at length such a Chief Secretary had been vouchsafed to landlordism in extremis, because they knew very well how the "hard-up Hamiltons" stood in Donegal. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool had never appeared in the House in the character of a friend of Ireland; and he could assure the noble Lord that if a plébiscite were to be taken in the county of Donegal, the management of the Hamilton estate would not receive the universal suffrages of the population. If the Liberal Party were to endorse the statements of the Chief Secretary that he was influenced in his extraordinary operations by a desire to economize at whatever other risk, there could be no more lasting and permanent blot upon the reputation of the Party. He hoped there was not a single Gentleman on the Benches opposite who would prefer to vote for the increased expenditure necessary to carry out these evictions rather than have any part of the responsibility in stimulating the landlords to make a wholesale battue of miserable tenants for economical reasons; he hoped there were no hon. Gentlemen who would wish to show a saving on the Estimates at the cost of the tenants of Ireland. He fully sympathized with the protest of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock against the manner in which a slur was sought to be cast upon the humanity and the philanthropy of previous Lord Lieutenants of Ireland. He was not bound to admire the policy of Conservative Viceroys of Ireland; but of them, at any rate, it was to be said that within his recollection no Conservative Viceroys of Ireland had declared what Lord Cowper declared at Belfast only a few months ago—namely, that the Liberal Party had practically despaired of getting at the root of disaffection in Ireland; that practically they had despaired of remedying the evils of Ireland; and that now they were bent upon driving discontent under. To cover the wretched failure of their own so-called remedial legislation, the Government had been trying to drive discontent under. Let the Chief Secretary and the Prime Minister look to the great county of Meath, and see whether they could drive discontent under. The policy of Liberalism in Ireland was a sham, and all the efforts of a dozen Chief Secretaries, with a dozen military consciences of the class introduced to their notice that night, would be utterly unable to induce the people to believe Liberalism was a reality.

said, it was generally a painful thing for Irish Members to listen to debates in the House on Irish subjects. Such subjects were seldom debated calmly, and still less frequently with perfect fair play. The attack which had been made that evening, in the hearing of both sides of the Committee, upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was most undeserved. The humanity of the right hon. Gentleman had been assailed, and they had been told he had no conscience; they had been told he was anxious to see properties in Ireland devastated, and the tenants turned out of their holdings; they had been told he was most anxious to have an opportunity of displaying a large force of military, so as to clear a whole county or barony of its tenants. All that had been asserted upon the strength of a letter written to the newspapers. He had not read the letter, but he was astonished to hear it emanated from Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald, and that he was acting on the part of the Property Defence Association. He did not think that many Members who listened to the attack on the Chief Secretary believed in its fairness. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) most properly reprobated the tone in which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) took up the cudgels for the anti-British party in Ireland, for the purpose of castigating his political opponents. He did not admire the position taken up by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), and he should never support it. Furthermore, he should never stand up at any time in defence of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, for he did not approve of it; but he thought, if there was anyone who had endeavoured to do his best to prevent the mischief that that policy had worked, it was the right hon. Gentleman who represented the Government in Ireland. So much for what he believed was thought by most right-minded men in Ireland. He now wished to allude to a few words which fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) with regard to the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool. The hon. Member made a most unwarrantable attack upon the noble Lord. Upon the tone of the attack he would make no remark; but he would say that the noble Duke, the father of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, held large estates, not only in the county of Donegal, but in the large county which he (Mr. Macartney) had the honour of representing; and he had never heard it even suggested by any human being that the noble Duke would require the assistance of Her Majesty's Forces to clear his estates. He did not know whether evictions on the estates were frequent; he believed not: but the noble Duke bore the character of being one of the best landlords in Ireland. His eldest son represented the county of Donegal for many years, and was only defeated by a narrow majority at the last General Election—the Marquess of Hamilton was not a Home Ruler, and therefore he was not returned. He re- gretted the personalities which had been employed by his countrymen, for he believed that if a higher tone were assumed in the debates on Irish subjects it would be more conducive to the welfare of the country.

said, perhaps he might be permitted to say a few words with regard to the question of the salary of the Chief Secretary.

I must point out to the hon. Member that it is not the question of the salary of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that is under discussion; but the question is that a certain sum be voted for the expenses of the Chief Secretary's Office.

apologized for the error into which he had fallen. He had had occasion several times to make inquiries with regard to the treatment of the men imprisoned under the Protection of Person and Property Act; and he had always found that the allegations made in respect to the ill-treatment of the prisoners were contradicted by the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman declared that the majority of hon. Members believed his statements, in opposition to the correspondence he (Mr. Biggar) had brought before the House. Now, his correspondence was from friends, upon whose veracity he could implicitly depend; whereas the right hon. Gentleman sought his information from gentlemen who knew nothing about the facts, and had no means of verifying the charges made. The right hon. Gentleman sometimes was rather sharp in his attacks upon Members who sat upon the Irish Benches. On a recent occasion the right hon. Gentleman taunted him with being afraid to say in Ireland what he would say in the House of Commons. Now, there was one thing he had always tried to do—he did not know whether he had always succeeded—and that was to say in public what he dared to say in private, to say in one place what he dared to say in another. He was never afraid to meet the right hon. Gentleman on equal terms; but he was not disposed to fight him when he used loaded dice. The right hon. Gentleman had the power to put him into prison, without assigning any reason whatever; but he (Mr. Biggar) had no power to act in a similar manner towards the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman need only declare that he had been guilty of all sorts of crimes and misdemeanours to cause him to be imprisoned. The Chief Secretary professed to use the very greatest attention and care in scrutinizing the facts with regard to the political prisoners in Ireland—in regard to their committal to prison, in the first place, and, in the next place, as to how long they ought to be detained. If he was rightly informed, the right hon. Gentleman, when in Dublin, instead of properly attending to the performance of his duties, spent a great portion of his time in a certain gambling house in St. Stephen's Green, in the City of Dublin.

The hon. Member is now imputing a crime to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland.

asked if he was to understand that the Chairman ruled that it was a crime, or the imputation of crime, to say that the right hon. Gentleman frequented the St. Stephen's Green Club, in Dublin.

The hon. Gentleman said the right hon. Gentleman spent a considerable portion of his time in a gambling house.

who rose amidst cries of "Withdraw, withdraw!" said hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side were so very noisy that——