HC Deb 15 May 1874 vol 219 cc342-67

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee).

(1.) £18,827, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Department.

(2.) £19,481, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office.

(3.) £3,926, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan Commissioners and West India Islands Relief Commissioners.

(4.) £36,455, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, England.

(5.) £363,380, to complete the sum for Stationery and Printing.

(6.) £20,697, to complete the sum for the Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, &c.

(7.) £37,159, to complete the sum for the Office of Works and Public Buildings.

(8.) £20,000, to complete the sum for Secret Services.

(9.) £5,330, to complete the sum for the Exchequer and other Offices in Scotland.

(10.) £10,475, to complete the sum for the Fishery Board (Scotland).

(11.) £4,930, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commissioners (Scotland).

(12.) £5,605, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Scotland.

(13.) £15,248, to complete the sum for the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for Public Heath, Scotland.

(14.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £5,941, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses.

MR. ANDERSON

said, Queen's Plates came under the Vote, and since it was last discussed a Committee on the subject of Horses had sat in "another place," and the evidence given before it went to show that the money spent in Queen's Plates was of no use whatever in improving the breed of horses, and that it was doubtful if it contributed even to the amusement of the people. Stronger evidence they could not possibly have, and as the only ground on which these Queen's Plates had been defended was that they improved the breed of horses, he thought they might now be done away with. He should, therefore, move that the Vote be reduced by £1,562, being the amount given for Queen's Plates in Ireland.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That a sum, not exceeding £3,929, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Mr. Anderson.)

MR. SULLIVAN

said, he was glad to find that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had been awakened when the Irish Votes were reached. They had just cantered through the Scotch Votes without a single question or objection from the hon. Gentleman, or any quarter of the House; but the moment the Irish Votes were reached, the hon. Gentleman's conscience appeared to be touched. He trusted the hon. Gentleman would allow Irish Members to settle for themselves what was most in consonance with the wishes of the Irish people as to their public amusements; and it was, to say the least, questionable taste on the part of the hon. Member to renew this conflict year after year. For his part, he had little sympathy with the sporting world, and thought the money might be better applied in Ireland; but the question here was, whether it should not be disallowed altogether. It was not conducive to the interests of Ireland that her interests should be watched over by the hon. Member for Glasgow, and he protested against the intermeddling of would-be economists from the North in the internal affairs of that country.

MR. MONK

dissented from the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member who had just spoken. That was a question of principle and not one as between Scotland and Ireland, or between Scotch and Irish Members. It was, also, one which had been repeatedly discussed during many years past by English and Scotch as well as by Irish Members. There was no Vote for Queen's Plates in England, and if the Committee should decide to refuse the Vote for Irish. Plates, he would, on the Report, move for the rejection of the Vote of £218 for the Scotch Plates. The Report of the Select Committee which had sat in "another place" to inquire into the subject of the horse supply, showed that no good in reference to the breeding of horses had resulted from the Queen's Plates, one half of which were walked over for by celebrated racers.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

was glad to believe that now that they had a Conservative and sporting Government in power, the Vote could not be successfully attacked. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government once said, and said with great truth, that the Irish people were discontented because they were not amused. The amusement of horse-racing was all the more acceptable to them, that the race-course was the only place in Ireland where all classes, rich and poor, met together; and if it did not with them possess all the virtues of the sport, it certainly was deprived of many of the vices which attended it in England. The wise Government which was now in power would certainly not lend its countenance to the striking out of the Vote.

MR. BRUEN

supported the Vote, remarking that there was perfect unanimity of opinion among the Irish Members on the subject.

MR. WHITWELL

said, a Blue Book had been published, the result of an elaborate investigation in "another place," from which it appeared that some of the best breeders in Ireland had given evidence that these Plates were a discouragement to the breeding of good horses. He had had experience of what a good Irish horse really was, and would recommend the Chief Secretary to see whether in future years a larger sum might not be applied in a manner which would be more likely to further the object which these Queen's Plates were originally intended to promote.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)

said, that Scotch views and Irish views by no means coincided, and that, he supposed, arose from a difference in the nature of things. The whole of Scotland could not produce a race worth going to; but in Ireland were to be seen many admirable races, and admirable horses, and large crowds of every class looking at them. When people came to legislate for a country, they should legislate for it according to its tastes and habits. He had not that Scotch objection to racing which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had. There was scarcely a more charming sight than might be seen on the Curragh, with a number of first-rate horses contending together, and charming ladies looking on, assisted by enthusiastic crowds of people. He had not the economical spirit of the hon. Member for Glasgow; but even if he had, he should think that a few hundred pounds might be very well spent in the encouragement of this popular sport.

MR. CALLAN

doubted whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken had ever been at the Curragh Races. He had himself been at the Curragh, and, though an Irishman, he must say he had never seen charming ladies there, neither did he think them well attended. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen might cry "Oh!" but he would tell them that at the Punchestown Races and the Ward Hunt Cup Race, he had seen more charming ladies than either at Epsom or Glasgow. He would suggest that half the money should be allocated to heavy weight-for-age races, for the Vote, as it was now applied, tended to produce a class of weeds not at all creditable to the country.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

said, he did not know whether races improved the breed of ladies, but they certainly did the breed of horses. As a master of hounds, he must say he was very much indebted to Irish horses. An hon. Friend of his intended to bring under the notice of the House the whole subject of the breed of horses, for it was a question whether it had deteriorated or not. He should support the continuance of the present Vote, at all events, until the subject could be inquired into by a Committee or Commission; but it might be doubted whether it would not be better to devote the sum hitherto given to Queen's Plates to the establishment of a really good stud in Ireland.

MR. ALEXANDER BROWN

suggested that the money voted for Queen's Plates would be much better applied in prizes for superior stallions and brood mares at agricultural shows, of which there was a short supply in England as well as in Ireland. He would vote with his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson).

MR. GREENE

, as one who was sensible of the advantage derived from good Irish horses, would support the vote, and at the same time, he must protest against any hon. Member for Ireland objecting to Scotch Members opposing this Vote. It was an united Parliament, and every hon. Member had a right to take part in its discussions. If that was not so, he would ask his hon. Friends from Ireland, whether they had not sometimes better abstain from coming there. There were divisions at times when he should feel the absence very agreeable. He objected to steeple-chasing; but he liked to find Irish gentlemen at least united in riding over the land, and he should therefore prefer voting the money for fox-hunting.

MR. BUTT

quite admitted the point made by the hon. Member who had just sat down, with reference to the absence of the Irish Members. The Irish Member would certainly not object to withdraw altogether—indeed, that was what they wanted—to go back to their own country and attend to their own affairs. He should, therefore, calculate with confidence on the vote of the hon. Member when the subject of Home Rule was brought forward.

MR. ANDERSON

thought the discussion had shown one thing, and that was the marvellous ignorance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland on the subject of racing. He seemed to think they knew nothing of horses or horse-racing in Scotland; but there were at least as good races in Scotland as any in Ireland, and it was seldom that the Derby was run without a Scotch horse being among the favourites, if, indeed, a Scotch horse was not the winner. He made the Motion not because he grudged the money, or because the Vote was an Irish one; and if a pledge were given that the destination of the money should be reconsidered, with a view to give it in a direction that would really improve the breed of horses in Ireland, he would willingly withdraw it. If not, he must press it to a division.

MR. STARKIE

supported the Vote, thinking that the money ought to continue to be applied as it had been hitherto.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 146: Majority 118.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(15.) £21,989, to complete the sum for the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Offices.

MR. BUTT

called attention to the recent decision of the House in favour of assistance being given to Irish fisheries, and asked, in what way effect was to be given to it?

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he was not in a position to give an answer at present.

MR. BUTT

inquired whether the Irish Government were prepared to treat the Resolution as a nullity?

MR. GOLDSMID

thought it would be more courteous of the hon. and learned Member not to press for an answer, after what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. BUTT

said, he did not know why the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester interfered. He (Mr. Butt) was quite as competent to judge of what was courteous as the hon. Member, and must decline to accept the instructions of a new Chesterfield. He meant nothing discourteous, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would acquit him of any such intention.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

repeated that he could not give an offhand answer.

Vote agreed to.

(16.) £350, to complete the sum for the Boundary Survey, Ireland.

(17.) £1,987, to complete the sum for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.

MR. BUTT

observed that there was scarcely a Board for public purposes in Ireland of which the Judges were not ex officio members. That was not the case in England, and it ought not to be the case in Ireland. The Judges were on seven charitable Boards out of 13. In his opinion, the Judges ought to be strictly confined to the functions to which they were appointed, and in that case they would be more appreciated. They might be called upon on the Bench to review their own decisions, and this fact was calculated to shake the confidence of the Irish people in the administration of justice in Ireland.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)

said, he would admit that in the case of the Education Board the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick ought to be considered; but he could not conceive any public body of which it was more important that some of the Judges should be members than the Board of Charitable Donations and Bequests. The decision of the Commissioners on all questions arising at the Board was final, and it, was therefore of importance that the ablest men should take part in its deliberations.

MR. BUTT

said, he entirely disagreed with the right hon. and learned Gentle-man in that view. Were the Judges sitting at that and other Boards to decide without counsel? If they were to, that very practice would destroy their fitness for their proper functions. A Judge, too, might give advice to the Board, and, if that advice were wrong, how could he sit on a case in which the consequences of his own wrong advice would come before him? He knew of a more important matter in which a Judge had been a party to the proclamation of a district, and afterwards sat on circuit in a Court in which the legality of the proclamation was called in question. Such a practice was a degradation of justice, and he protested against it.

MR. LAW

sympathised with the objection taken by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick, but remarked that the Judges acted as Commissioners under an Act of Parliament.

MR. CALLAN

inquired whether it was not the case that other Judges besides those appointed by the Act were members of the Board?

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, that; four other Judges did so act. The English Judges were not placed in such anomalous positions, and the Irish Judges only were so, in consequence of the strange system of Government which existed in the country. Every Government appointed its own political partizans, and thus those Boards acquired a political character.

THE CHAIRMAN

reminded the hon. Gentleman that the question before the Committee was the Vote for Charitable Donations and Bequests, and that a discussion as to the Judicial Bench in Ireland was not germane to the subject.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he would confine his remarks to the Board of Charitable Bequests. Many questions would come before that Board as to the allocation of charitable funds to Protestant or Roman Catholic charities; and the appointments made, if not really tinged by political influences, were believed to be so tinged by the people of Ireland. For that reason, he thought the Judges ought to be relieved from that particular function.

MR. C. E. LEWIS

said, the Board performed in Ireland the same functions as were discharged by the Charity Commissioners of England. No counsels' fees could be charged before them, though their jurisdiction extended over hundreds of thousands of pounds, and there was no litigation. The grievance of hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to be that Irish Judges were appointed to the Board; but the practice in England was to appoint Judges to various Commissions directed by the Crown. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick was also trying to make a grievance out of the Board of Donations and Bequests, but with very bad effect, because if he could not trust his own Friends for such a purpose, how could he trust them for the higher national purposes to which he desired that they should be called?

MR. BUTT

did not say that Irish Judges were not as fit to be members of the Board of Charitable Bequests as English Judges to be Charity Commissioners. But as an Irish barrister, he wished to see Irish Judges, like the Judges in England, secluded from everything but their proper duties, and then they would be removed from all suspicion and distrust.

Vote agreed to.

(18.) £91,297, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board, Ireland.

(19.) £4,364, to complete the sum for the Public Record Office (Ireland) and Keeper of State Papers, Dublin.

MR. SULLIVAN

called attention to the necessity of applying without loss of time a sum of money to the translation of Gaelic manuscripts, such as the "Annals of Ulster," the "Boyle Annals," and the "Annals of Innisfallen." They had lost those eminent Irish scholars, Dr. Todd, Professor O'Currie. Professor O'Donovan, and Dr. Petrie, and if the translation was not soon proceeded with they would have no persons left able to do the work.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, the subject had not before been brought under his notice. It was one of great national interest, which he should be most anxious to promote, and he could assure the hon. Member it should have his best attention.

Vote agreed to.

(20.) £22,917, to complete the sum for the Office of Public Works, Ireland.

MR. BUTT

called attention to the circumstance that a third Commissioner had not been appointed. Sir Richard Griffiths had retired on a superannuation allowance, and was nominally one of the Commissioners, but since his retirement there had never been a meeting of the Board. He should wish that these Boards should be presided over by an officer having a seat in the House.

Vote agreed to.

  1. (21.) £19,617, to complete the sum for Registrar General's Office, &c. Ireland.
  2. (22.) £43,323, to complete the sum for Law Charges.
  3. (23.) £154,398, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions, Sheriffs' Expenses, &c.
  4. (24.) £143,945, to complete the sum for the Court of Chancery.
  5. (25.) £59,895, to complete the sum for the Common Law Courts.
  6. (26.) £37,617, to complete the sum for the London Bankruptcy Court.
  7. (27.) £359,600, to complete the sum for the County Courts.
  8. (28.) £76,332, to complete the sum for the Courts of Probate and Divorce.
  9. (29.) £10,335, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry.
  10. (30.) £4,370, to complete the sum for the Land Registry Office.
  11. (31.) £11,898, to complete the sum for the Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
  12. (32.) £197,227, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

, in reply to an hon. Member, explained that before the additional charge for the metropolitan police could be asked for from the Committee, a Bill must be brought in sanctioning that charge. A measure for that purpose would be introduced shortly.

Vote agreed to.

  1. (33.) £310,098, to complete the sum for the Police, Counties and Boroughs (Great Britain).
  2. (34.) £386,224, to complete the sum for Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies.
  3. (35.) £87,420, to complete the sum for County Prisons, &c. (Great Britain).
    4. 352
  4. (36.) £175,543, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Great Britain).
  5. (37.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £26,724, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, England.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

, in rising to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £14,834, in order to place it on the same scale as the similar State Criminal Lunatic Asylum in Ireland, said, that until 1849 criminal lunatics in Ireland were always treated as prisoners, and were confined in the ordinary convict prisons; but in that year the Irish Government proposed to establish a separate lunatic asylum for them, and accordingly the asylum at Dundrum was established, and had proved a great blessing to the country and had done its work admirably. The consequence of its success was that a similar establishment was set up for England at Broadmoor. That criminal lunatic asylum contained 563 inmates, whereas the Irish Asylum contained only 180 inmates, but the expenses of the Broadmoor Asylum were£33,724 a-year, whereas those of the Irish Asylum were only £5,371 per annum. Thus, while the number of patients in the English establishment was only three times that of the Irish establishment, the expenses were six times as great. Therefore, no candid Member of the Committee who knew the circumstances, would deny that there was something to complain of in the matter. He did not intend to criticize the management or the condition of the Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum. It would suffice to say that its management had been exceedingly expensive and unsatisfactory for a number of years. It was formerly under the management of the Director of Convict Prisons, and that management drew forth the remonstrances of the Lunatic Commissioners. Of late years, however, a great change had been made in its management. One hon. Member of that House, who would doubtless make some observations on the subject-had taken great interest in the establishment, and the last report was that the institution was managed as well as it possibly could be. With regard to the expenses, however, he could only say that, seeing that the same class of persons were confined in the English and Irish establishments, it was a mystery how so large an expenditure should be required for the support of the English institution when so much smaller a sum sufficed for the maintenance of the Irish institution. At Broadmoor there was one attendant for every three or four patients. He did not say that was too many. That was a point on which he would rather take the opinion of his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Walter). These attendants had very onerous, difficult, and dangerous duties to perform, and it was necessary that such officers should be highly paid; but if they were highly paid in England, why should they not also be adequately paid in Ireland? In Ireland they had only one attendant to between seven and eight patients, whereas at Broadmoor, as he had before observed, there was one attendant for every three or four patients. Again, at Dundrum the salaries were quite inadequate, the salary of the highest attendant being only £40; while at Broadmoor the chief attendant had £160, seven principal attendants had £74 each, and the lowest attendant, £34. At Broadmoor there was a chaplain having a salary of £400 a-year, while in Ireland the chaplain had only £60; the Roman Catholic chaplain at Broadmoor had £50, while in Ireland the Roman Catholic chaplain had only £40. There was a steward at Broadmoor with a salary of £300, while the corresponding officer at Dundrum received only £45, and in conclusion, he must repeat that at Broadmoor the patients were three times as many as at Dundrum, while the expenditure was six times as much. Two years ago when he brought forward this question the Government promised to give their attention to it, but nothing had come of that promise. He quite understood that the management of a criminal lunatic asylum required a large expenditure, and it was no doubt in consequence of the high salaries that were paid at Broadmoor that they were not troubled with those changes of officers which were perpetually occurring at Dundrum. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice—that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £14,834.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £11,890, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic "Asylum, England."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, he was very much surprised that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) made the Motion on the Vote for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum. He admitted that he had nothing to find fault with; he had done nothing but commend the management at Broadmoor. He did not say there were too many officers, or that their salaries were too high, and yet he asked the Committee to reduce the vote by the sum of £14,834. He must repeat that the hon. Member for Galway, who only wished to raise the expenditure at Dundrum, ought to have brought forward his Motion on the Vote for Dundrum. At the same time, he (Colonel Barttelot) could not help thinking that the expenditure for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum was enormously large. Each criminal lunatic at Broadmoor cost the sum of £57 per annum; at Dundrum the cost per head was £30; while in the Sussex County Asylum each lunatic was kept for £25 14s., and the average cost throughout the country was £26 5s. Last year they were promised that careful attention would be given to the subject; but instead of a diminution, there had been an increase of expenditure—the estimate this year being £31,724 against £30,492 last year. He would call the attention of his hon. Friend who had the management of the matter to the importance of something being done to reduce the expenditure at Broadmoor. Something was said about the farm last year; he supposed it had been this year a losing concern; at all events they should have a debtor and creditor account with regard to it

MR. WALTER

believed his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) referred to him as having, as he supposed, taken some interest in Broadmoor, being on the Council of Supervision of that asylum, and he thought he could give the Committee some little explanation regarding it. He must say he almost wished that the Forms of the House had permitted his hon. Friend to make his Motion in the form of an addition to, rather than a subtraction from the Vote, because it was quite clear from the whole tone of his speech that what he was really driving at was not so much to dimmish the expenditure at Broadmoor, as to make some addition to the expenditure at Dundrum. And he was bound to say, if he had taken that line even more strongly, he would have had some justification for the proceeding; because it was perfectly true the Lunacy Commission in their Report spoke in very strong language of the inadequate salaries at Dundrum, and attributed to these small salaries the constant annoyance and inconvenience of the resignations of their offices by the servants of that establishment. On the other hand, the Lunacy Commission spoke in high terms of the effect produced on the officers of Broadmoor by the more liberal salaries received there, and stated that it was no doubt chiefly owing to that circumstance that the authorities of Broadmoor were spared the trouble and the country the inconvenience and risk of a frequent change of officials. He must correct one mistake his hon. Friend had made in his figures. He stated that the whole expenditure at Broadmoor was £32,000, while at Dundrum it was only £5,400, in round numbers; but his hon. Friend did not seem to have had his attention called to the fact that in the £5,400, £2,400 was not included, which would be found debited to Dundrum in the estimate of "works on public buildings, for fuel, rent, and furniture." That item, however, was included in the Broadmoor estimate; so that the sum actually voted for Dundrum was not £5,400, but £7,800. That was the sum paid for the maintenance of Dundrum Asylum. That would alter the rate of cost per head of the inmates at Dundrum from £31 to £43, leaving an excess of cost for the patients at Broadmoor over Dundrum of only £14 per head. Therefore if his hon. Friend desired to make an exactly just comparison, so as to equalize the rate per head of the two establishments, his proposed reduction should be only £7,800, instead of £14,834. The truth was, Broadmoor was a costly establishment, and he would tell the Committee why. There were two quite different classes of criminal lunatics. There was the criminal lunatic who committed crime because he was a lunatic—who murdered, perhaps, his wife and family because he was insane. At Broadmoor a very large portion of the inmates were convicts—men who had become mad in consequence of their crimes while undergoing their sentences at Pentonville and other places, and had been sent to Broadmoor. Those were the most formidable class that had to be dealt with. That dangerous element was at Broadmoor in the proportion of 25 per cent. whereas it was only 10 per cent at Dundrum. That necessitated a much larger staff of attendants. It was by far the most serious element in the expenses, and, in fact, the charge for attendance amounted to about £9 6s. a-head in excess of the other charges at Broadmoor. The cost of the patients or criminals at Broadmoor was about £14 a-head more than the cost per head at Dundrum. He should be glad if the expense at Broadmoor could be largely reduced, but he very much feared there was no probability of that. With regard to the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Barttelot) as to the increase in the charge for Broadmoor this year, that arose from the increase in the price of coal, and it could not be helped. Those were the material points which he wished to mention to the Committee. He believed it might be highly desirable to increase the salaries of the officers at Dundrum, but that was not the question before the Committee. After the explanation he had given, he trusted his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to persevere in his Motion.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, that what he really wished to impress upon the attention of the Government was the extremely low salaries at Dundrum, which varied from £18 to £25 a-year for the attendance, while at Broadmoor they ranged from £38 to £55.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he had an opportunity, of which he gladly availed himself, when in Ireland not long ago, of inspecting the asylum at Dundrum. As far as he was able to judge, no institution could be better conducted. The whole matter with regard to the salaries of the various officers employed at Dundrum Asylum, their numbers and position, had been already inquired into by the Departmental Committee of the Treasury appointed by the late Government. Recommendations had been made by that Committee as to the necessity of mating some alteration in the constitution of the various departments of the asylum, and the matter at present was in the usual course of Correspondence between the Irish Government and the Treasury.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he could not understand why criminal lunatics cost £57 a-head, while in Scotland the average cost of ordinary pauper lunatics was from £26 to £27 a-year. He thought the Committee should have some clearer explanation of the causes of this great difference.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

expressed his readiness to withdraw his Motion.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he would not go fully into the expenses at Broadmoor Asylum that night. His hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), who was connected with the asylum, had made an interesting statement on that subject. There was a very great difference between the expense attending the safeguard of dangerous and criminal lunatics at Broadmoor and the expense of maintaining ordinary pauper lunatics. At the same time, he could assure his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Mitchell Henry), and also his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Barttelot), that this question of the expense of the asylum at Broadmoor had been lately brought under his notice, although not in time to enable him to make a thorough inquiry into the whole matter, as he should have liked, before this Vote was presented to the Committee. He would consider whether steps should be taken to remove the dangerous part of the lunatics from the asylum, in order that they might be taken care of elsewhere, and more cheaply. Before the Vote was presented to the Committee next year, he would do all he could to ascertain whether any expense could be saved in this matter, and he would state next year what had occurred.

MR. FLOYER

said, the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) had given very valuable information to the Committee with regard to the asylum at Broadmoor. At the same time, he thought the outlay on that institution should be largely reduced. What he specially objected to was the number of clerks in it, as compared with the number of clerks in ordinary lunatic asylums. If there were dangerous lunatics in Broadmoor, the stores in it were not more dangerous than the stores in ordinary lunatic asylums, but the number of officials connected with the store department at Broadmoor was double the number of officials connected with the store department in ordinary lunatic asylums, and he thought half of the officials must be helping the other half to do nothing.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(38.) £15,480, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Charges.

(39.) £58,420, to complete the sum for Criminal Proceedings, Scotland.

MR. DILLWYN

complained that the salaries of the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General, and other officials were spread over different Votes, and their amounts were not easily seen.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, the point should be considered in preparing the Estimates next year.

Vote agreed to.

(40.) £50,375, to complete the sum for Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland.

MR. DILLWYN

asked the reason for the great increase in Sheriff Courts?

MR. RAMSAY

inquired whether Sheriffs' clerks were paid for their whole services by the Treasury, or were at liberty to charge fees for their services at Parliamentary elections?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he understood the increase on Sheriff Courts was due to a change of arrangement, by which certain salaries had been removed from the Consolidated Fund, and placed on the Votes. Also certain officers, hitherto paid by fees, were in future to be paid by salaries, but as the fees were to be paid into the Exchequer, there would be no real increase in expenditure, although the Vote was increased. The other question was new to him, and he could not answer it.

Vote agreed to.

(41.) £26,254, to complete the sum for the Register House Departments, Edinburgh.

(42.) £20,497, to complete the sum for Prisons and Judicial Statistics, Scotland.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £65,153, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland.

MR. SULLIVAN

expressed a hope that the consideration of the Vote would be postponed on account of the absence of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. He desired to pass some comments on it, which he would prefer to make in the presence of the noble Marquess.

MR. BUTT

said, that was really a very serious matter, and in the absence of the noble Marquess the Vote ought not to be taken. In it there was a very large sum, he believed £5,000, for expenses and charges in actions brought against the police, and amongst others against the noble Marquess and Colonel Lake, Chief Commissioner of Police in Dublin, arising out of the attacks made upon people assembled in public meeting in the Phœnix Park, Dublin. It would be impossible to allow the Vote to pass without considerable discussion, and at that late hour—half-past 11 o'clock—it would be impossible to discuss it, and he should therefore move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Butt.)

MR. W. H. SMITH

hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow the Vote to be taken. Looking into the Vote, he saw that there was a decrease of £22,000 in the Vote that year, and, therefore, it was hardly probable it included any of the expense to which reference had been made. If Notice had been given of the hon. and learned Gentleman's intention to object to the Vote being taken, he was sure the noble Marquess would have been present.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the Vote having been put could not be postponed.

MR. BUTT

assured the hon. Gentleman that the expense was really included.

MR. W. H. SMITH

pointed out that there was nothing to prevent hon. Members discussing the matter on the Report, and expressed a hope that the business in which they were now engaged would not be interrupted.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)

said, the sum voted last year was £71,922, and the sum asked for this year was £49,922. The sum referred to had reference to the Vote of last year. He agreed that the question could be discussed on the Report.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he would inquire about the £5,000. He did not think there was any portion of it in the Vote.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he also thought it would be better to take the Vote, and challenge it on the Report.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, the Vote involved the question of the propriety and validity of taking a Vote of Indemnity in that House for an illegality committed by persons serving under the Crown.

MR. DODSON

said, it was to be regretted that Notice had not been given of the intention of hon. Members to challenge the Vote, and then the noble Marquess would have been present, and the Government would have made the necessary inquiries. He suggested that the Vote should be withdrawn.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)

said, the decision of the Exchequer Chamber in Ireland was in favour of the Marquess of Hartington.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he would postpone the Vote.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

(43.) £37,497, to complete the sum for the Court of Chancery, Ireland.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

asked, what became of the salary of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland when the Great Seal was in Commission?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)

replied that it was kept in the Exchequer for the benefit of the nation.

Vote agreed to.

  1. (44.) £24,088, to complete the sum for the Common Law Courts, Ireland.
  2. (45.) £6,840, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy, Ireland.
  3. (46.) £10,692, to complete the sum for the Landed Estates Court, Ireland.
  4. (47.) £9,663, to complete the sum for the Court of Probate, Ireland,
    5. 361
  5. (48.) £1,690, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry, Ireland.
  6. (49.) £13,875, to complete the sum for the Registry of Deeds, Ireland.
  7. (50.) £2,643, to complete the sum for the Registry of Judgments, Ireland.
  8. (51.) £113,231, to complete the sum for the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
  9. (52.) £885,268, to complete the sum for the Constabulary of Ireland.

MR. WHITWELL

pointed out that there was a decrease of seven in the number of sub-inspectors, of 29 in the number of head-constables, and of 1,155, or 10 per cent. in the number of constables this year as compared with last year.

Vote agreed to.

(53.) £34,350, to complete the sum for Government Prisons and Department of the Registrar of Habitual Criminals, Ireland.

MR. SULLIVAN

called attention to the importance of having medical officers of perfect independence and public reputation in their profession to see that no undue severity was practised towards the inmates of convict prisons; for the present treatment, in some instances, was, it appeared from official reports, calculated to make the prisoners insane. He had no charge or imputation to make against individuals, but he had against the system, and the system alone. Take one instance. The former medical officer of Mountjoy Prison—a man of great eminence in his profession—having fearlessly discharged his duty in that respect, had been shelved, and another medical officer appointed in his place who, having no practice or professional status outside at stake, and being resident in the prison, was—he used the words in no sense to disparage the individual gentleman in question, but to describe the position—a mere medical warder or officer under the control of, and, in fact, the creature of the prison authorities, in so far as he was totally dependent upon them. It was desirable that they should have medical officers who possessed a professional character outside of those establishments, and whose bread and butter did not altogether depend upon their official position. He trusted that the Committee would remember that the light of day in the shape of public opinion never penetrated into a Government convict prison, and that it was a living tomb for the prisoners.

MR. BULWER

said, he congratulated the Committee on the advent of certain hon. Members from Ireland, who found nothing too high or too low for their vituperation. On one night it was directed against a learned and distinguished Judge upon the Irish Bench; on this, the hon. Gentleman opposite had singled out a more humble person, the surgeon of a convict prison for his attack. In neither case was the victim present to defend himself, and, under such circumstances, to make attacks, was neither generous nor manly.

MR. SULLIVAN

denied that a single phrase offensive to the gentleman in question had fallen from his lips. ["Oh, oh!"] He had only spoken of the system.

MR. BULWER

reminded the hon. Gentleman that, among other assertions, he had asserted that the gentleman could not do his duty, because he was the creature of the prison officials.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, that he had never heard a more unfair attack than that made by the hon. Member for Louth, who, without alleging a single definite charge against an officer whom he had not even named to the Committee, said that officer was a creature of the officials of the prison, and that he had no out-door character at stake; and then endeavoured to shield himself by saying that he had made no personal charges against the officer. After that, he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would leave it to the Committee to decide what value could be placed upon statements of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

contended that his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had spoken only of the system, though he had mentioned one particular prison. When he practised as a member of the medical profession, one of the fundamental rules was that the Government always appointed an independent medical officer outside to visit Millbank and see that the regulations were carried out. The medical officer resident within a prison was usually a young gentleman, and he could not be so independent as a medical practitioner in private practice. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had so soon caught the unworthy tone given to the debate by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Bulwer), who said that nothing was too high or too low for the vituperation of the Irish Members. It was all very well for hon. Members opposite who disappeared from the House about 7 o'clock to dinner, and re-appeared about midnight, to indulge in inarticulate animal noises. ["Order," and "Chair!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

hoped that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw the expression, for he must feel that it was hardly a proper remark to address to the Committee.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, he was willing to withdraw the word "animal," although he did not think there was much to complain of. The noises to which he referred were not articulate, and they proceeded from human beings, and, as human beings, were animals, he thought they were fittingly described as inarticulate animal noises when they interfered with the freedom of debate, but his hon. Friend (Mr. Sullivan) was quite justified in complaining of the removal of the medical officer, and the appointment of a resident surgeon directly responsible to the Executive. Such a proceeding would not be permitted in England, and, in his opinion, nothing could be more unwise.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

could appeal to every Member of the Committee whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had not always used the most courteous and conciliatory language where Irish Members were concerned. The course taken by those Members, however, was such as to alienate from them the sympathies of those who sincerely desired the well-being of Ireland.

MR. DODSON

thought that the hon. Member for Louth did not deserve the attack made on him. He had disclaimed making any personal attack upon the medical officer, and only found fault with the system of not having a medical officer resident outside of the prison, and responsible to public opinion.

MR. HUNT

said, that the assertion that this medical officer was only the creature of the prison officials was not an attack upon the system, but an expression directed against a gentleman which would have been resented if he had been present, and which was calculated to give great pain to a member of an honourable profession. For that reason, hon. Members who had heard it used were perfectly justified in objecting to it. He, however, fully accepted the hon. Member's disclaimer, when he said that he intended no personal attack.

MR. DILLWYN

thought that the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the meeting—[Laughter]—he begged the Committee's pardon for calling it a "meeting," but he was sure that the hon. Member for Louth who addressed the meeting—[Renewed laughter]—meant only to attack the system, and not the character of the medical officer. He contended that the effect of the system was to destroy the independence of the medical officer.

MR. HORSMAN

said, that misunderstandings would occasionally arise; but it was the practice of the House to accept such a disclaimer as had been given by the hon. Member for Louth, who, although he had expressed himself with a good deal of vehemence, did not intend to cast a personal reflection upon the medical officer in question, and therefore did not deserve the severe censure which had been passed upon him.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

desired to reply to a remark which had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Bulwer). The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that no man, from a Judge to the humblest person in the land, was safe from vituperation in this House. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Motion which he (Sir Colman O'Loghlen) had brought forward a few nights since in relation to Mr. Justice Lawson. He wished, in answer to that observation, to say, with every respect to the hon. and learned Member, that he considered himself the best judge of his own conduct, and while he had the honour of a seat in that House he would always discharge what he believed to be his duty.

MR. BULWER

said, he could assure the right hon. Baronet that he had not heard his speech the other evening. All he had heard was the speech of the hon. Member for Louth, who appeared to him to have been very unjustifiably severe upon the learned Judge. However, as he understood the observations made by the hon. Member to-night, were intended to be used only in a "Parliamentary sense," he would express a hope that anything he might have said would receive the same interpretation.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)

complained that the present Government had to defend the transactions of the late Government. The salary of this medical officer was voted last year; but no objection was was made by the patriots who now took exception to the appointment. Not one whisper was heard so long as the Government responsible for these acts remained in power; but the moment a change took place, he and his right hon. Friend were treated as the authors of these proceedings. He doubted the sincerity of those who had sat silent on the former occasion; but the remark did not apply to the hon. Member for Louth, who was not in the House at the time.

MR. MACARTNEY

thought he had a right to complain that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland on the opposite (the Opposition) side assumed to themselves the exclusive privilege of representing their country, for there was a considerable number of hon. Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side who represented Irish constituencies, and who did not concur in the opinions expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, or approve of the uncalled-for attack which had been made upon the Chief Secretary. He had risen to say that every Member of that House, who was interested in Irish public affairs, spoke uniformly in praise of the right hon. Gentleman, for his constant courtesy, and the ability with which he performed his duties.

MR. BUTT

said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the only attack made upon the right hon. Baronet existed in the mind of the hon. Gentleman himself. He regarded the system complained of as unfortunate; but it was absurd to look at the raising of a discussion of the kind as a party question, or as an attack upon the Government.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, he had not for one moment supposed that any attack was intended, either upon Her Majesty's Government, or upon himself. The attack appeared to be made upon a Gentleman who was absent, and who seemed to have discharged his duty well, and that circumstance led him to resent it with a little greater warmth than was perhaps called for. On the general question, he quite understood that some objection might be felt in Ireland to the discontinuance of visiting physicians, and the matter should on that account have his attention.

MR. SULLIVAN

begged most unreservedly to withdraw the word "creature," which had given so much offence, and to say—as he had most distinctly declared when using it—that he had not intended to apply it in any way to the derogation of the dignity or character of a gentleman of whose name even he was ignorant.

Vote agreed to.

  1. (54.) £74,174, to complete the sum for County Prisons and Reformatories, Ireland.
  2. (55.) £4,371, to complete the sum for Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland.
  3. (56.) £1,841, to complete the sum for the Four Courts Marshalsea.
  4. (57.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £57,156, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses in Ireland.

MR. CALLAN

complained of the sums of money given to Chairmen of Counties, and moved that the Vote be reduced by a sum of £7,300.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £49,856, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1875, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses in Ireland."—(Mr. Callan.)

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, the Vote was settled by the late Government, under whoso consideration the matter had been for some time.

SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLEN

said, that the Vote was increased by the allowance made to Chairmen of Counties for discharging certain duties under the Land Act.

MR. C E. LEWIS

urged the expediency of doing justice to clerks of the peace, whose claims he was glad to know the Government were willing to consider.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

expressed the desire of the Government to do what they could to meet the justice of the case.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;

Committee to sit again upon Monday next.