§ (5.) £17,000, Superannuations and Retired Allowances.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked how it came to pass that so large a sum as £6,000 was wanted in the Supplementary Estimates in connection with "Superannuations and Allowances, Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice." For a single Department the amount was so large that one was puzzled to imagine how the authorities could be so far out in their Estimates. It could only be excused on the ground that something unforeseen had occurred in the year, or that some great re-organization had taken place.
§ MR. HIBBERTexplained that the charge was entirely owing to the reorganization in the Pay Office.
§ MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, there was a tendency to increase, which certainly ought to be repressed by those who were responsible for the Department. He noticed that in 20 years the Vote for Superannuations and Retired Allowances had grown from £183,000 to £463,000. That was, in his opinion, a very extravagant increase.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, [that perhaps his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) would be good enough to explain the large item for Diplomatic Services—how it was that so large a sum as £4,000 could not have been foreseen in the Estimates which were voted last year?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the sum included the retiring allowances made to Sir Charles White, 983 Sir Henry Layard, and Mr. Harrison. There had been some uncertainty as to the sums to be paid, and a legal point was raised, especially in the case of Sir Henry Layard, and therefore it was not possible to foresee what would be paid. He could only repeat that he had made every effort to keep down the Supplementary Estimates of his Department.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought there should be some sort of examination into the law which at present governed diplomatic pensions. The noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had just told them that one of the payments under this Vote was to Sir Henry Layard. It was perfectly true that for one or two years, a great many years ago, Sir Henry Layard was in the Diplomatic Service as an attaché to an Ambassador. For a long while he was a distinguished Member of the House of Commons, and because he had been an attaché and a Member of the House and an Under Secretary of State he was sent as Minister to Spain. Subsequently he was sent to Constantinople. Now, the law with regard to diplomatic pensions was that a person could only receive a pension after 15 years' service, and during 10 of those years he must have held a diplomatic position abroad. When Sir Henry Layard ceased to be Ambassador at Constantinople he had only served 10 years and three months, and he had to wait some years doing nothing, receiving no pension, until 15 years had elapsed from the time of his admission to the Diplomatic Service—that was when he first went to Spain. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not think pensions were intended for that sort of service—for paid service in the Diplomatic Corps. It might be said that diplomacy was a profession, and that the pensions were intended for those who had passed the greater part of their lives in it. Sir Henry Layard was to receive £1,700 per annum for having served as Ambassador for 10 years. Eight hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench served their country for much longer than 10 years without receiving, when they retired, a pension of £1,700 a-year. He did not think Sir Henry Layard was to blame, because, perhaps, anyone in the House would take a pension if he got the chance. Legally, Sir Henry Layard was entitled to take a pension, and he (Mr. Labouchere) never 984 blamed anyone for taking what he was entitled to take. But he thought that an alteration should be made in the system, and that pensions should be limited to those who had devoted their lives to the Diplomatic Service, and not given to gentlemen who were pitchforked from the House of Commons into a diplomatic position for a few years only.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) objected to Sir Henry Layard having a pension, on the ground that that gentleman had not devoted the whole of his life to the Diplomatic Service; or, in other words, on the ground that, having been in the Diplomatic Service, and having then come into the House of Commons, he was put into an Embassy because he made himself disagreeable to the Government Department to which he belonged. The hon. Gentleman should recollect that some day he might find himself in the same position. It was, therefore, quite possible that if the hon. Gentleman opposed this Vote he might be cutting his own throat.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHwished to say a very few words in reference to the Chancery allowances which were included in the Vote. He understood his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) to say there had been a reorganization of the Paymaster's Office. He did not doubt that the re-organization was prompted by a sincere desire to promote the best interests of the Public Service; but he had had some experience of re-organizations, and he was bound to say they frequently disappointed the expectations of the persons who had made them. He trusted the Government and the Treasury would be extremely cautious how they entered into re-organizations which did not immediately effect a very considerable economy in the Service. No doubt there might be occasions when it was necessary to get rid of certain officers who stood in the way of great practical improvements; but there was a great deal to be said on both sides of the question. He was bound to say that re-organizations were not satisfactory which made considerable increases to the Pension Vote, and only temporary reductions of the Votes for the Effective Services. The Effective Votes had a tendency to increase in the 985 proportion in which it was assumed the efficiency of the Service was promoted, while the Pension Vote decreased very gradually indeed. He made no opposition to this Vote as it stood; but it did seem to him that re-organization was a proceeding which required the greatest possible caution on the part of the Treasury.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) had not given any explanation of the last item of the Vote—namely, "grants made to certain Colonies."
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, the item referred to by the hon. Gentleman represented a pension granted to a late Governor, the Marquess of Norman by, on the ground of advancing age.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £890, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, in aid of the Local Cost of Maintenance of Pauper Lunatics in Ireland.
§ MR. W. J. CORBETnoticed that this Vote was—
To meet the case of a greater increase in the number of patients during the year than had been anticipated and provided for.He would like to know whether the increase of insanity was real or not. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert), when he was Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, stated his opinion that the increase of insanity was real; but since then he (Mr. Corbet) found that the Commissioners had in their Report repeated the statement that had been made for so many years that the increase was only apparent resulting from the accumulation of chronic cases. He would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the figures. He found that in 1862 the number of insane persons in the United Kingdom was 55,527, and that in 1872 it was 77,013, and that in 1882 it was 98,871. He found that in 1884 the number had again increased to 103,660, an increase in two years of 4,589. The ratio of insane per 1,000 of the population, was, in 1862, 1.81; in 1872, 986 2.41; and in 1882, 2.84. Now, it was a very remarkable thing that the Commissioners of Lunacy should try and make it appear from their Report that insanity was not on the increase in the face of figures such as he had quoted. He did not desire to make any attack upon the public lunatic asylum system in Ireland; indeed, he only wished that there were none but public lunatic asylums, for he believed that the insane population were very much better provided for in those asylums than they were in private asylums. Owing to the vicious principle of deriving profit that pervaded the private lunatic asylum system, patients did not receive the same treatment or reap the same advantages as patients in public asylums. He would not enter further into the matter on that occasion; but he hoped to have some expression of opinion as to whether or not the increase which was minimized and made light of by the Commissioners was real or not.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Vote was one which belonged to the Department of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman); but as his hon. Friend (Mr. Corbet) had referred to him, and to a speech he made on this question, he must say that he held the opinion he expressed last year—namely, that there had been a considerable increase in lunacy in the United Kingdom, though some part of it might be accounted for in England by the fact that lunatics were now sent to county asylums from workhouses and other places. He did not think that there was the same ground for the increase in the other parts of the United Kingdom. The whole matter, however, could be discussed when the Bill, which was now being prepared, and which would shortly be introduced in the House of Lords, came before the House.
§ COLONEL COLTHURSTdesired to put a question to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) with respect to the position of pauper lunatics in the county of Cork. Insane persons arriving in Cork were sent to the asylum there, and they became for ever a charge on the rates of the county and City of Cork. In such cases in England, he understood, there would be the power to send the persons to the Unions or county to which they belonged, so 987 that they would become chargeable to the proper quarter. In Ireland there was no such provision in the law; so that once insane persons landed in Cork, whether they came from America, Prance, Germany, or anywhere else, they must be received into the lunatic asylum. He had been asked to bring the question to the notice of the Government, and though it was not a very large one it was stated to be an injustice. He hoped that in the Bill which his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) said was about to be introduced in "another place" attention would be paid to the recommendation of the Commission which was appointed seven or eight years ago, and which went fully into the subject, and made some valuable suggestions as to the treatment of pauper lunatics in Ireland. A large proportion of the lunatics in Ireland were treated in the workhouses; but that was not the case in England. The lunatics in the Irish workhouses were in a most wretched condition, and the Commissioners made several suggestions to secure an amelioration of that condition.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) had just said a Bill was being prepared on the subject of lunatic asylums in England and Ireland.
§ MR. HIBBERTI think it is for England only.
§ MR. MOLLOYThen the Bill will have no reference to Ireland at all?
§ MR. HIBBERTNone. The hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Corbet's) question had reference to the United Kingdom generally, or else I should not have referred to the Bill.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, that last year he brought forward the subject of the private lunatic asylum system in force both in England and Ireland. There was considerable discussion, and he was asked by the Government not to press the point, because the question of the private lunatic asylum system was being considered by them. The object he had in bringing up the subject was to put an end, if possible, to the universally acknowledged vicious private lunatic asylum system. He now understood from the hon. Gentleman (M. Hibbert) that the Bill shortly to be introduced would refer to England only. Would the Bill deal with private lunatic asylums?
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Bill was being prepared by the Lord Chancellor, and by the Home Office; and, therefore, he was not able to enter into its details.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, that the late Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) stated, during the debate last year, that a Bill was then under consideration with a view of putting an end to the existence of private asylums. Would the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) say what progress had been made with the Bill?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he was not aware of the discussion last year, or of the promise that had been made; but what his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) had said was a Bill relating to England was being prepared, and would shortly be introduced in the House of Lords. The Bill would, of course, show the principle on which the Government proposed to proceed in the matter. The same principle would afterwards be applied to Ireland, if such a change was thought necessary in that country. When that Bill was published, hon. Members would be able to see the principles which the Government accepted as the proper foundations for procedure in the matter.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDwished to know whether the Committee were to understand that a Bill similar to the one for England would be introduced for Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman had said that the principles which were contained in the English Bill would naturally be the principles which would be followed in an Irish measure of the same kind. But, unfortunately, it was not at all a natural inference that principles extended to England would also be extended to Ireland. Was the right hon. Gentleman's declaration to be understood as a promise that a Bill would be introduced for Ireland?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that that, of course, would depend upon the acceptance of the English Bill by Parliament. If the Bill passed there would be an intention of proceeding further in the same direction for Ireland, and the Irish Bill would follow upon the particular lines which had been approved of by Parliament.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDthought the right hon. Gentleman surely did not mean to say that the introduction of a 989 Bill, dealing with this important subject for Ireland, depended on the reception which an English measure would obtain from Parliament? Whether Parliament did or did not receive with satisfaction a Bill for England could not at all alter or affect the necessity of such a measure for Ireland.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant were only another evil exemplification of what the Irish Members had to struggle against year after year and Session after Session in reference to Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman had had any experience in his present Office he would be aware that the whole history of the law in relation to lunatics in Ireland, as compared with England, showed that, though the same representations had been made from the two countries for a great many years, reform after reform had been introduced, and successfully carried, for England; but the same reforms had not been extended to Ireland. In the last Report of Judicial Statistics for Ireland the whole of this matter had been gone through again with precisely the same complaints about the neglect of legislation with respect to criminal lunatics; and with regard to pauper lunatics precisely the same thing had happened. There had been Bill after Bill passed into law for England, and especially for the Metropolitan district, until at last there was very little left in the Metropolitan district to complain of. But the grievances which were complained of in Ireland 14 years ago were still as rampant as ever. Why did not the Government go and see how the money would be expended? Let the Government send down any trustworthy official to inspect the condition of the pauper lunatics at Dingle Workhouse, in the West of Kerry. Such an official would find a large place covered in as a tool-house might be, with poor miserable walls, and no floor but the cold clay; and there he would find poor women, four or five in number, imbeciles, or otherwise mentally affected, wandering about from morning to night, and from year's end to year's end, without anybody to attend to them properly, and the unfortunate children in the workhouse were allowed to go into the room with these lunatic women, for that was their only playground. That was the sort of thing that had been 990 allowed to exist year after year. He (Mr. O'Connor) complained when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and that right hon. Gentleman said he would look into the matter. Then came the Recess, and soon afterwards the right hon. Gentleman went out of Office. Next there came another Chief Secretary, who also promised to look into the matter, and now there was a third, and there was no reason to hope for any improvement. He would not call this cruelty, because he believed the officials had been so bred up in the system as to be unconscious of the cruelties inflicted by the want of proper supervision; but something ought to be done for the credit of the Administration, discreditable as it was in certain respects. It would be well if something were done to put an end to the scandal which now existed.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was not at all indifferent to the existing state of things. He knew something about it, and he quite agreed that very serious changes appeared to be desirable. But the question was one of general lunacy reform rather than one between private and public lunatic asylums, and it was with the general subject that the Bill which was about to be introduced into the House of Lords would deal. That would give a key to the line of action on which the Government proposed to proceed. He did not wish to make any promises, for it was not always so easy to fulfil them even with the best intentions; but there was nothing in which he was more interested, or in which he had greater hope of effecting some good, than the general condition of lunatics in Ireland.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid that, under these circumstances, he would limit his request to this point. He would ask the Government to send down an Inspector to see the Dingle Workhouse, and to report whether it was not the fact that the poor lunatics there were absolutely without proper supervision, that they were in a place with no floor, and that the children of the workhouse played all day long in the place where the lunatic women were kept without proper supervision.
§ MR. SMALLwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had considered the question of the pay and superannuation of the lunacy attendants, and whether any improvement could be made in the position of those officers?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that he would look into that matter.
§ MR. DEASYsaid, he thought that after the observations which had been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for County Cork (Colonel Colthurst) with reference to the existing state of the law affecting lunatics in Ireland, it was clear that the law as it stood was very unjust to the people who contributed the bulk of the money for the maintenance of those lunatics. Every pauper lunatic in Cork Harbour or on any part of the coast of the County Cork, or that district, or of the district of the Cork Asylum, no matter where, was at once transferred to the Cork District Asylum, and charged on the rates of that district. He believed that a great part of the money which was now about to be voted went for the maintenance of such individuals. He trusted that the Government would soon introduce their Irish Bill, and would take into account the fact that both the ratepayers and the Government contributed largely to these lunatic asylums in Ireland, and that the present system of administering the money paid by the ratepayers and voted by Parliament was defective in many respects. There was another matter to which he wished to call attention. He believed that a considerable portion of this money was misspent very often, owing to the manner in which the Boards of Governors were constituted; and that was attributable, to a great extent, to the manner in which the Lord Lieutenant and his advisers had made the appointments to these Boards. A Governing Board had been created in Cork which met with the disapproval of everybody in that county and city. He should like to draw attention to some of the recent appointments. Some years ago an application was made to the then Lord Lieutenant asking that four or five members of the Cork Town Council should be appointed Governors of the district lunatic asylum. The Lord Lieutenant, in reply, wrote, ask- 992 ing them to nominate three gentlemen, and saying that he should be glad to appoint them. They nominated three gentlemen, one Conservative, one from the Whig Party in the Council, and one Representative of the Nationalists. These gentlemen were appointed, and about four months afterwards the Council unanimously decided on nominating another gentleman—Mr. Alderman Nagle—who had been a considerable time Chief Magistrate of the city, and who was one of the most experienced and able members of the Council. The then Lord Lieutenant refused to appoint this gentleman; but six or eight months after that the Council again determined to nominate him for the same position, and threatened that if he were not appointed they would refuse to present for the amount required by the Governors to carry on the institution. Under the influence of that threat His Excellency wrote a very conciliatory letter, and promised that he was very likely to see his way to meet their views. Ultimately he was appointed under that threat. When another vacancy occurred last summer another gentleman, who happened to be an Orangeman, a Conservative, and a Freemason, was nominated, and by return of post the Corporation received a letter from the Lord Lieutenant approving of his nomination, and assenting to it. That gentleman did not long enjoy the office, and another vacancy very soon occurred on the Board, and a Mr. John O'Brien was nominated by the Corporation from their own body. About three months ago his name was sent to Dublin Castle; but the Lord Lieutenant did not see his way to appoint him, because he differed from him in political matters. Mr. O'Brien was again nominated; but a second time the Lord Lieutenant refused to appoint him. And he (Mr. Deasy) was happy to say that the Corporation were now about to have recourse to the same tactics which they used before, and that they intended to refuse the supplies unless this very reasonable demand of theirs was complied with. The Lord Lieutenant pleaded in extenuation of his conduct that there were no vacancies on the Board; whereas, as a matter of fact, there were three, because two gentlemen had left the country and resigned their positions, and another was dead. There was a special 993 reason why Mr. O'Brien should be appointed, because the ratepayers had strong grounds for believing that jobs had been carried by the Board for the benefit of the political friends of the majority of the Board. It had come under the notice of the Town Council that within the last six or eight months a con siderable sum had been thrown away on one contract alone—the woollen contract; and Mr. O'Brien, who was largely in the woollen trade, had a special knowledge of that particular branch of business, and it was believed that he would be able to put an end to such things as had been going on for very many years. He (Mr. Deasy) trusted that some explanation would be given of the course which had been taken by His Excellency in the case of Mr. O'Brien. Whenever a gentleman representing the opposite political views to those of Mr. O'Brien had been nominated, the Lord Lieutenant had never hesitated for a moment about assenting to the appointment; but the moment a gentleman like Mr. O'Brien was named, His Excellency put down his foot and refused to allow the appointment to be made. He (Mr. Deasy) did not think that such a power was rightly exercised by persons like Earl Spencer, and he maintained that the ratepayers should be permitted to have a voice in the management of these establishments for the future. It was a deplorable state of things that gentlemen of Mr. O'Brien's position in Cork, a Town Councillor, representing a very large constituency, and being one of the leading men of the city, should be denied the right to sit on such a Board, because the Lord Lieutenant for the time being did not agree with their political opinions. He did not think that such a line of action would at all tend——
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! I do not think the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant has anything to do with the Vote for the increase of these lunatics in Ireland. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to go on for some time, because I thought he was going to connect his comments with the increase in the number of lunatics.
§ MR. SEXTONMay I submit to you, Sir, that the remarks of my hon. Friend are pertinent to the administration by the Boards of Governors of the money intrusted to them?
THE CHAIRMANIn my opinion, the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant has nothing whatever to do with the Vote now before us. If the hon. Member wishes to raise any question of that kind, the proper time to do it will be when the main Vote comes under consideration. The present Vote is only for an increased cost, owing to the increased number of lunatics. It is certainly not in Order to complain of the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant on this particular Vote.
§ MR. DEASYwould, of course, bow to the ruling of the Chair; but he had intended to show that part of the sum which they were now called upon to vote would be misapplied, owing to the fact that the proper men were not appointed upon the Governing Boards, to see the money properly administered. But as the Chairman had ruled him out of Order, he would not, of course, pursue this line of argument any further. As to one of the questions raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst), there could be no doubt that if a proper classification were carried out in Ireland, Parliament would not be called upon to provide so large a sum annually as was now asked for on this account. Owing to the want of proper accommodation in the workhouses of Ireland, and to the fact that a great number of paupers who were really not dangerous lunatics, and for whom lunatic asylums were never intended, had to be accommodated in them, the sum asked for was much in excess of what it ought to be, and the county cess was burdened to an unfair and unjust extent. That was a state of things which should be promptly remedied. On the other hand if those poor people now in lunatic wards in workhouses could be treated differently, there might be some hope for them; but as matters stood at present, it was impossible for any of them to recover their reason, on account of their surroundings and to the want of proper provision being made for them. In fact, it was impossible for their mental condition to improve so long as they were confined to the narrow ill-ventilated and unhealthy wards of workhouses.
§ MR. KENNYwished to say a few words upon the Vote which was now before the Committee, and to call the attention of the Committee to certain 995 features in the management of the Cork Asylum and of the Clare Asylum. It was no wonder that the cost of maintaining asylums in Ireland greatly increased under the system of management adopted by the Boards of Governors, who seemed to take so much interest in the duties imposed upon them that he found, in the case of the Cork Asylum, that three or four of the Governors placed upon the Board had not condescended to attend even a single meeting of the Board in the course of a year. In fact, it was quite clear that the only popular person who had a seat upon the Board was the Mayor of Cork, and he was about the most regular attendant at the meetings. Among the names of the Governors was that of the Earl of Mount Cashel, who had not found it convenient to attend a single meeting, and that of the Earl of Bantry, who was in the same position, and that of Sir C. D. 0. J. Norreys, who also had not attended a meeting. In fact, if he read out the whole list of names it would be found that, with the exception of one or two, none of them had attended to the duties with which they were charged. The only conclusion that could be arrived at from the registers of the Boards of Governors, was that the management of the lunatic asylums would become so defective that the cost which appeared in the Estimates would naturally become greater and greater every year. Looking at the case of the County Clare, he found that the number of meetings attended by the various members of the Boards of Governors was even less than in the case of Cork. He found that these self-nominated gentlemen, although they were not very great guns like those he had just named—there was no Earl of Bantry or Earl of Mount Cashel; they were only plain gentlemen, J.P.'s, and so on, or at the outside Deputy Lieutenants—were nearly all resident in the county, and yet they did not find it convenient to attend. He thought the system of intrusting the management of the lunatic asylums in Ireland to a body of irresponsible men who virtually took no interest whatsoever in the matters in which they were supposed to be concerned, was very scandalous, when one considered what ought to be the system of local government and local management. He found that recently the Board of Go- 996 vernors of the Ennis Asylum had under their attention the appointment of a resident medical superintendent. There were a great many candidates for that position, and amongst them were certain extremely well-qualified local candidates. The majority of the Board were in favour of a local candidate; but it appeared that the appointment of a resident medical superintendent to the Ennis Asylum rested with the Lord Lieutenant; and the consequence was, that in spite of the local feeling and of the feeling even of the Governors, a gentleman was brought from County Cork with no special claims. That gentleman had had some service in a lunatic asylum previously, but certainly no superior claims which would entitle him to a position among strangers upon whom he had no local claims whatever. This system of foisting candidates upon persons who did not require their services was a most objectionable one. Certainly, he did not envy the gentlemen who were appointed, because they were very likely to become lunatics themselves in the course of a few years. That had been the fate of a previous occupant of the office in the Ennis Asylum, and he did not envy the success of the present official in any way. However, if these appointments were to be made at all, they should be made in a spirit of fair play, and those who had local claims and personal qualifications which were undoubted, ought to be elected wherever they could be found. The gentleman who ought to have been selected for the Ennis Asylum had for two years at least been locum, tenens for the previous holder of the office, owing to an attack of temporary insanity, which afterwards turned out to be permanent, with which that previous holder was afflicted. The gentleman he referred to discharged the duties while acting as locum tenens with entire satisfaction, and was a man of high character and of great ability; but he had been thrown over for a third or fourth rate man, who had been brought from a distance of 100 miles away and placed over an asylum which he knew nothing about and had no connection with. He hoped that the Chief Secretary, who was responsible, would be able to give some explanation of the matter, as to whether there was any good reason why a local gentleman of superior claims was passed over by the Lord 997 Lieutenant of Ireland, and a stranger foisted upon the people of the locality.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was true that the local candidate had a great deal of local support, and he had not one word to say against him. No doubt, he was possessed of high qualities. As a matter of fact, the gentleman in question was dispensing officer for two months, and he served as assistant resident medical superintendent temporarily since May 1883, and he believed that was the whole of his experience in this respect. The hon. Member had said something about the appointment of these officers being left at the mercy of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but he would point out that that was a duty imposed upon the Lord Lieutenant by Statute. He could assure the Committee that no one would be more delighted than the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he were relieved of the responsibility of appointing persons to these important positions. The Lord Lieutenant, however, was responsible to the Government. With regard to the case of the Ennis Lunatic Asylum, the hon. Member seemed to think that the officer who had been appointed was a second or third rate man; but out of the almost innumerable candidates, Dr. Jocelyn was placed unhesitatingly first on the very long list of applicants for the post by the Medical Inspector of Lunatic Asylums; he was considered to be one of the first among assistant superintendents throughout Ireland. His experience was that he had been assistant resident medical officer for 14 years; whereas the experience of the other gentleman extended over about as many months, and he had not been in the regular service. Then he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) asked what would be thought of the conduct of a Government who, when a vacancy occurred, failed to give promotion to men who were perfectly well qualified? He could assure hon. Members that he had gone through the whole of the papers and seen the applications of the candidates, with the result that he believed no reasonable person could come to any other conclusion than that Dr. Jocelyn was the very best man for the position. It would have been, no doubt, a graceful act to have appointed the local candidate, against whom he had nothing to say; but, unfortunately, his testimonials, 998 which related principally to knowledge of his personal qualities, could not be set against the experience and long service in the other case. That was the history of the appointment, which had been made after a long and careful consideration, and he believed that appointment had received the approbation of the existing Lunacy Administration in Ireland.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought that this Vote was one which could not but be regarded with dissatisfaction by anyone interested in the administration of the insane law in Ireland. What did he find? The Government asked for £890 for the maintenance of pauper lunatics in Ireland. It was for the maintenance of a greater number of lunatics than had been provided for in the original Estimate. He thought it was a serious matter when the Government found themselves compelled to apply for more money than was originally asked for. Hon. Members should bear in mind that this increase in the expediture on account of pauper lunatics in Ireland was an increase which went on year by year, and it was not the first occasion upon which Irish Members had observed this increase. He had not been able to look to the figures for the last two or three years; but he believed he was justified in saying—indeed, he challenged contradiction—that the increase was steadily growing. Not only was the amount paid from the Imperial Treasury increasing, but it was also the case with the amount paid by the ratepayers of the country. He found that the total for the present year was £95,390; for 1883 it was £92,866. That was a very considerable difference, and one which well deserved the attention of the Committee. What made the increase more extraordinary was that it took place in a country in which the population was steadily decreasing; they had a decreasing population on the one hand, and an increasing expenditure for pauper lunatics on the other. That, he said, was a most alarming circumstance, and deserved the serious attention of the Committee, as well as a much more complete answer than had been given by the Chief Secretary. For his own part, he believed that the reason of this increase was bad management. They would not have been called upon for the £890 asked for if these lunatic 999 asylums were properly managed; and he submitted that the Chief Secretary was called upon to give some answer to the various points raised. He spoke with the authority of a person as familiar with the management of lunatic asylums as anyone in that House when he said that these Governing Bodies were almost entirely self-elected. A certain number of gentlemen, all belonging to a particular class of the population, when a vacancy occurred, sent to the Lord Lieutenant a recommendation of some person for the appointment. It was a system of Local Option, tempered with the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant. Would the right hon. Gentleman stand up in that House and justify this principle of self-elected Guardians, which largely accounted for the extraordinary increase of expenditure for the maintenance of pauper lunatics in the midst of a dimiishing population? He wished to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he thought it becoming, in reference to this gross mismanagement by self-elected Governors, on the part of the Lord Lieutenant or himself, to bring his influence to bear to prevent anything like a mixture of the popular element with the body of self-elected Governors—was it decent on the part of himself or the Lord Lieutenant? ["Order!"] He did not wish to offend the Chief Secretary by any language of his own; but was it seemly on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who bore his share of the responsibility for these transactions, to interfere and prevent a popular Body from having one of its most trusted representatives serving as one of the Governing Body of the asylum? He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that this was a question on which the ratepayers of Ireland would make themselves heard before long. In 1883 the entire sum paid on account of Lunatic Asylums was £219,516 for pauper lunatics, and although £98,566 was paid from the Imperial Exchequer, the ratepayers paid £123,702 of the amount. That being so, he thought that the ratepayers had some reason to exercise very stringent control over an institution which cost them such an enormous sum of money. But what did he find now? He had not the exact figures in his possession; but he understood from an hon. Friend below him, who was intimately 1000 acquainted with the subject, that the ratepayers of Ireland, this year, in place of paying the enormous sum of £126,702, which was the amount in 1883, were now paying something like £130,000 for pauper lunatics. It was no wonder that they should be called upon to vote an additional sum like the present, when they saw increased expenditure going on at this gigantic rate. He asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to explain whether, in any legislation he might hereafter bring forward, he would include a radical and revolutionary change in the government of these asylums? There was evidently some such reform required in the government of these institutions, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could stand up and justify the action of the Body which had refused to sanction the appointment of Mr. O'Brien? Was it to be tolerated that a body of representatives of the ratepayers at Cork should not have the right of appointing to the Governing Body of the lunatic asylum of the district a man accepted by them as a worthy mouthpiece? He was satisfied that any attempt in London or Edinburgh, or in any other part of the country of England or Scotland, to interfere in this way with the rights of the ratepayers, would not be tolerated for one moment.
SIR PATRICK O'BEIENsaid, he had called Order during the speech of the hon. Member for Galway; but he begged to say that he had merely endeavoured to awaken a few hon. Members while the hon. Gentleman was addressing the Committee.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) expressed his surprise and indignation at the increase of the Vote for Pauper Lunatics, and he said that the Government and the Irish Administration had so mismanaged this Vote that they had now to ask for a large supplementary sum. He would point out, however, that the sum asked for was less than I per cent on the amount of the original Estimate. The Committee would be aware that in preparing the Estimates the actual number of inmates of lunatic asylums could only be guessed, and he did not think that the increase of 1 per cent was a charge with respect to which hon. Members need be tempted to use such strong Ian- 1001 guage. The hon. Member said that the whole of the increase was due to the mismanagement of the authorities; but the reason why the Vote had increased was that the number of lunatics had increased. It was a melancholy fact that there were many insane persons who were not registered as lunatics, and although the population of Ireland was diminishing, the number of lunatics in the asylums was on the increase. In 1875 the average number of persons in the asylums was 7,750, and the gross amount required under this Vote was £80,600; in 1882, the last year for which he had a Return, the average daily number was 9,170, and the amount required £95,868. The Committee would observe that there had been a steady increase in the number of lunatics, and although it was extraordinary, as the hon. Gentleman said, that there should be an increased charge with a diminishing population, that increased charge was due, nevertheless, to the increase of lunacy in the population; it was purely due to the increase of lunatics in the asylums. The hon. Member, in referring to the appointment to the Governing Body of Cork Lunatic Asylum, had spoken of the advantage of self-government. So far as that matter was concerned, he was entirely with the hon. Member; he wished that by some system of local self-government duties such as these could be thrown on the localities, and he trusted that it would not be long before some such system was introduced. In the meantime, however, they had to deal with things as they found them, and the duty was thrown by law on the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland of appointing Governors to these asylums. It had been said that the Lord Lieutenant had refused to appoint the gentleman referred to because he had refused to dine with him. If the hon. Member opposite thought that was the case, all he could say was that he should disabuse his mind of that idea. The truth was that the Corporation of Cork had by custom, but not by right, been in the habit of recommending Governors to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for appointment. These persons had sometimes been accepted and sometimes not; but lately the Corporation had assumed a somewhat different attitude, and had claimed, not only the privilege of recommending according to the practice 1002 which had been followed hitherto, but they claimed the actual right of nomination. Now, the Lord Lieutenant was responsible under Statute, and he could not divest himself of his responsibility for the appointments. When Mr. O'Brien was recommended, after a good deal of discussion, certain men were sent up from Cork Town Council in connection with a vacancy which had occurred, and Earl Spencer came to the conclusion that there was a sufficient number of Governors already, and that, therefore, there was no necessity of filling the vacant place. Then it was said that the city interest was left imperfectly represented on the Board of Governors; but, according to the numbers, he found in the documents before him the city interest already preponderated on the Board. He thought that was an important point. In 1884, the County of Cork paid £7,953 towards the maintenance of asylums, and was represented by 15 Governors; and in the same year the City of Cork paid £2,695, and was represented by 22 Governors. He begged to assure the Committee that there had been no intention whatever to put any slight upon the Corporation; and there would be no desire, when it was necessary to appoint a Governor, not to take into the fullest consideration the expressed wishes of that Body.
§ MR. JOHN O'CONNORsaid, this question with regard to pauper lunatics in Ireland was of great interest to the people. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Colthurst), who had laid this question before the Committee, had emphasized the fact that the Corporation of the City of Cork had taken into very serious account the manner of the administration of funds at the disposal of the Board; and he thought that, notwithstanding the statement of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, it had been clearly shown that the citizens of Cork had no fair representation upon that Board. So much had that been brought home to the people of Cork that investigations were instituted by the Corporation, which resulted in the discovery that a great deal of expense had been incurred by the acceptance of bad contracts, and that in this way the funds had been improperly administered. In 1003 that state of things the Corporation of the City of Cork selected a certain man who was an expert in some articles dealt with by the Lunatic Board of the district asylum, and they had their suspicions that the Lord Lieutenant would not appoint him in consequence of his political opinions. The person selected was a man remarkable for his business capacity, and he had already served upon public Boards to the advantage of his fellow-citizens. The Lord Lieutenant did not appoint him. And why? Because he had lain for four months on a plank bed; because he had protested against laws which he believed to be more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Hon. Members on those Benches were entitled to ask on what grounds this man had been rejected. For the information of the Committee, he begged to state that the constant refusal of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to appoint men to public Boards in Ireland in cases of this kind only increased the discontent which existed with regard to the administration of these funds; that this discontent was extending itself upwards amongst business men in the country, and it was high time that the Government should take this matter into consideration with a view to remedy the evils complained of.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the Committee would appreciate the way in which the Chief Secretary had given information to the Committee with regard to this Vote. They had a distinct conflict of evidence upon this point. The junior Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Deasy) said that the city had only two representatives on the Board. The right hon. Gentleman said there were 22. [Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN": I said on the Corporation.] Their point was that when a member of the Board appointed by the Corporation died, the Corporation claimed the right to nominate. Who were the persons who represented the City of Cork on the Lunacy Board—who were the safeguarders of the money of the ratepayers? Why, here was one, the Earl of Mount Cashel, a gentleman of 90 years of age, who never thought of attending to the duties of the post. The Earl of Bantry was another—a gentleman at present engaged in hunting the kangaroo in Australia; and there were many others—J. P's and so on—not one of whom not only would not be ap- 1004 pointed by the Corporation, but would not be appointed to the meanest office in the Municipality by anyone who had the interest of the Municipality at heart. The fact of the matter was this—that formerly, when a death or vacancy occurred amongst the Governors of the lunatic asylum, although there were more Governors then than there were at the present time, the Lord Lieutenant nominated a new one. Now, however, when a vacancy occurred, and when the Town Council of Cork for the first time for years proposed to exercise its right to nominate a Governor, the Lord Lieutenant made the flimsy excuse that there were too many Governors already. The Lord Lieutenant and the Government, who were responsible for this, were the people who would extend the franchise, who wished for popular representation, and who desired that the people should express their opinions. A Member of the Government that night had declared that the Government wished for some system of local self-government, and yet Her Majesty's Government would not allow the people of Cork so much local salf-government as would contist in allowing the Town Council of Cork to nominate a Governor to the Cork Lunatic Asylum. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) said—"We have been anxious for years to give you a system of local self-government." Well, the Irish Members would put his sincerity to the test, and would say—"Give us as much local self-government as will enable us to nominate a Governor for a lunatic asylum and to secure his appointment—give us the power we have hitherto exercised." They were told that the Lord Lieutenant considered they were too full on the Board, and that they had enough Governors. Well, he presumed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had a desire to obtain some amount of credit in his Office, although he was a Scotch official. The right hon. Gentleman must have some desire to please the masses of the people he was amongst. If he were sent to India, at any rate he would have that feeling with regard to the Hindoos. How could he tell them, without the merest pretence, that he was anxious to give them local self-government, when he refused to allow them the small privilege they were now asking for? Now, the Irish Members knew very well the 1005 reason of the right hon. Gentleman's reluctance to agree to the present just demand. This reason was that Mr. J. O'Brien had got four months' imprison ment—that when the Government officials in Ireland were looking about for mauvais sujets and village ruffians, they had put this man, who was a Councillor of the city, and one of the most honest citizens of Cork, in gaol, and had given him four months' confinement for making a speech. They had punished this man for making a speech which was not by any means as violent as speeches they heard every day in that House. He (Mr. Healy) wished he could have a sovereign for every speech of a stronger character he had made in the House. The Government not being satisfied with having plank-bedded this gentleman, with having shaved his head and shaved his beard, and kept him on skilley for four months—this not being enough for them, they now refused to allow him to be appointed a Governor of a lunatic asylum. Before he (Mr. Healy) passed from this case, he would say that the best way for the Corporations of Ireland to bring the Lord Lieutenant and all Lord Lieutenants to their senses, was just to give them a taste of the quality of the Limerick Corporation. The Corporation of Cork paid thousands of pounds a-year for the keeping up of its lunatic asylum. Let them pay no more. If Earl Spencer, whilst pretending to desire to make the people loyal, insisted upon excluding them from the management of local institutions——
THE CHAIRMANI must point out to the hon. Member that we are not engaged in a discussion as to the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant. The Vote is to provide for an increase of pauper lunatics, and this is not an occasion for reviewing the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant on this subject. If that matter is discussed at all, it must be discussed on the Main Question. This Vote is for an increase of pauper lunatics, and I cannot allow the debate to wander off into an attack upon the Lord Lieutenant.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had been misled into irrelevancy by imitating the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, to whom he had been replying. He should like to ask whether this asylum was the one with which Dr. Eames was connected? He had been intending to bring the case of that 1006 doctor forward. Dr. Eames was one of the gentlemen brought up to Dublin by the Government to give a professional Report upon the condition of Mr. James Ellis French. He had given a bogus Report, declaring that Mr. James Ellis French was weak in the understanding, weak in the hips, weak in the legs, and weak in every way, and that he was perfectly incompetent—that was to say, he was so incompetent that he was unable to plead to an indictment. This gentleman, together with Dr. Curtis and Dr. Gordon, had been brought in to declare that Mr. James Ellis French, now undergoing two years' imprisonment in Her Majesty's prison, was absolutely ruined in his faculties. If any of his (Mr. Healy's) hon. Friends were anxious to know how bad Mr. James Ellis French was in the opinion of this Dr. Eames, who was the doctor of the lunatic asylum in question, and a man through whose hands lunatic patients passed, they would find on inquiry that his view was that Mr. French was an idiot. That in itself was enough to show how this man Eames was fitted to be intrusted with the doctorship of a lunatic asylum. But there was another case connected with Dr. Eames, which was still more remarkable. The first case was that of a man who was said to be incapable of pleading, but who was afterwards found able to plead, had pleaded, had been found guilty, and was now undergoing two years' imprisonment. The other case had formed the subject of an action. It appeared that a man had been delivering milk to the asylum, and through some extraordinary hallucination Dr. Eames had shown himself to be not only a doctor in connection with the asylum, but a person to provide the asylum with inmates, for he had seized upon this unfortunate milkman, put him into a straight-jacket, and flung him into a dark cell, on the ground that he was mad. Dr. Eames had got out of this difficulty by paying £5 to the unfortunate man, who had brought an action against him for false imprisonment. Well, he (Mr. Healy) put it to the Committee whether this Dr. Eames was a man whom they ought to have at the head of a great lunatic asylum? On the one hand, he declared Mr. James Ellis French to be mad after it was shown that he was not so; and, on the other hand, he 1007 seized an unfortunate milkman, whom he found on his rounds, and put him into a dark cell, on the ground that he was a lunatic. The sooner they had a fresh medium for the appointment of such men as these the better. He should have thought such a scandal as this would have at once attracted the attention of the Government. Unless they had a proper system of supervision over these institutions they would continue to have doctors of this kind. If the Cork Corporation were able to send to the Governing Body of the asylum Governors of proper calibre, who would see that the doctors they employed discharged their duties properly, scandals of this kind would be avoided; but so long as the Governing Body consisted of deadheads, such as the Earl of Mount Cashel, who never went near the place at all, they would have such officials as Dr. Eames. What worse scandal could there be than that of putting an innocent milkman in a straight-jacket and in a dark cell for hours, under the pretence that he was a lunatic, when, as a matter of fact, there was nothing the matter with him? With regard to James Ellis French's case, this was Dr. Eames's certificate, dated from the asylum—
Lunatic Asylum, 20th April, 1884.—We, the undersigned, having been appointed by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant to examine and certify, for His Excellency's information, our opinion as to the present state of health of County Inspector James Ellis French, R.I.C., beg to report that, having visited that officer, we are of opinion that he is suffering from mental disease, softening of the brain, and great nervous debility, with impairment of bodily health; that from this infirmity of mind and body he is incapable of discharging the duties of his situation, and that such infirmity is likely to be permanent.This Report was signed by Dr. Eames and by the other two doctors he had mentioned, and he contended that the man who said that this ruffianly County Inspector, who was now picking oakum and doing hard labour in Richmond Convict Prison, was of unsound mind, was the man in charge of the lunatics in Cork Asylum. The Lord Lieutenant did not want on Boards of Governors persons of an inquiring turn of mind. He would rather have Mount Cashells, aged 90, who never went down at all to see whether Alexander Eames was properly discharging his functions, or to see how the place was getting on. He and some other of the Irish Members had had, in 1008 their short experience, a course of three Chief Secretaries, and all of them in succession seemed to be determined to learn nothing from their Predecessors. The Irish Members had addressed many grievances to them, and had requested that they should give attention to these grievances; but, though they were appealed to in this way day after day and week after week, they never obtained redress. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary think the Irish Members moved in these matters for their own amusement? If he did, he was sadly mistaken. The Irish Members could enjoy themselves much better elsewhere than by going through this process. But, be that as it might, the Irish Members had to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give attention to these grievances, which were very galling and very grievous to them. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary meant to carry out his functions in an effective and thorough manner, he (Mr. Healy) would ask him not to be swayed by the information he got over from the Castle as to the Cork Lunatic Asylum having a sufficient number of Governors upon it. He would ask him to treat the matter in an impartial spirit, and to give due weight to what he heard from the Irish Members in the Committee. If he continued to act as his Predecessors had done, and to go from pitfall to pitfall, and from failure to failure, he would, at the end of his tenure of Office, whenever that might be, go out of it a wiser but a sadder man.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, he thought that this matter was one of far greater importance than English and Scotch Members, from a general inception of it, might think. In this matter, which the Irish Members had brought up that night, was involved the question of self or local government. Her Majesty's Government, and he believed the Prime Minister himself, and he knew the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, had declared themselves in favour of local self-government in Ireland. Well, he believed that that would be doing a great deal towards satisfiying the people of Ireland, and allaying the discontent which existed there, if they could be brought seriously to believe that the Government were in earnest in their protestations in favour of this local self-government. Up to this, however, 1009 the Irish Members had absolutely nothing before them in support of the statement of the Government that they were in favour of local self-government except mere words. If the Irish Members could believe that the Government intended in the future to introduce some measure which would give to popular representatives complete control over all such institutions as lunatic asylums, they would gladly refrain from these criticisms. But they could not believe that Her Majesty's Government really did intend to do anything towards extending the power of the people of Ireland, unless they had something besides words before them. Here was a case in which the Government might, if they had liked, by a little fair and judicious action, have given to the people of Ireland abundant proof of the fact that they were desirous of extending local self-government to the Irish people; and how could the Irish Members be supposed to credit sentiments such as they had heard that night from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the effect that he was anxious to see the power of the people extended, and to see local self-government instituted in the country, when in the very same breath the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues refused to give proof of the earnestness which prompted them to make that statement? He knew that the discussion of matters like this must be very trying to hon. Members who represented English and Scotch constituencies. They knew very well that in bringing forward questions of this kind they laid themselves open to be viewed by a very considerable degree of prejudice by the people of this country and the Members of that House who represented English and Scotch constituencies; but when it was remembered that the Irish Members had absolutely no method of expressing grievances such as that with which they were now dealing, except by speaking on the floor of that House, he thought that even the most prejudiced amongst the English and Scotch Members would admit that they had some little right and were deserving at least of some consideration in bringing these matters forward. Of course, at that hour of the morning (1.25 A.M.) hon. Members would be glad to see such a discussion as this postponed; but if the Irish Members did not ventilate their 1010 grievances in connection with the treatment of these lunatic paupers that night, the Committee knew very well that they might not in this Parliament be able to secure another opportunity of doing it. Somebody or other had once said that an opportunity only came once in a lifetime. Well, it might be said that an opportunity only came once in the lifetime of a Session. The present was the opportunity of the Irish Members for expressing the particular grievance in connection with the lunatic asylums of Ireland, and the Irish Members would not be true to the interests of the people they represented if they did not avail themselves of that opportunity to its fullest extent. Hon. Members might feel uncomfortable at being kept up so late; but he would remind them that those who were presenting the case had to consider, besides their own comfort, and that of their Colleagues, the treatment of the unfortunate lunatics who looked to them, and to them alone, to ameliorate their condition. It would be hard for him to present the case which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst) in a new light. Several of his Colleagues had emphasized the case, setting forth the injustice imposed on the City of Cork by the refusal of His Excellency to appoint to a position of trust an eminent citizen who had won for himself the respect and the confidence of his fellow-citizens; but even at the risk of being considered guilty of tedious repetition, he (Mr. W. Redmond) was bound to say, seriously and honestly, that he did not remember for many and many a day having heard such a flagrant instance of the violation of the rights of the people by the Government in Ireland than the action of the Lord Lieutenant in refusing this appointment of Mr. J. O'Brien. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would have them to believe that the Lord Lieutenant had not appointed Mr. J. O'Brien, Town Councillor, upon the Governing Body of the asylum because he was not wanted. If the Asylum Board were at its full complement, the Irish Members would not consider so much the injustice of the refusal of the Lord Lieutenant to accept the nominee of the Corporation; but what made them feel doubly grieved in this matter—and to this he invited the special attention of 1011 the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—was that they knew very well that the appointment of Mr. O'Brien was refused by the Lord Lieutenant, not because of his unfitness for the post, not because he had not capacity for administering the affairs of the asylum in a proper manner, but because he was what might be called a personal enemy of Earl Spencer and of his rule in Ireland. The men who were anxious for Mr. O'Brien's appointment were Nationalists, and that was the secret of the thing. But who was the last man that the Lord Lieutenant had appointed to be one of the members of this Governing Board? "Why, Mr. Barry Shehan, one of the most notorious anti-Nationalists in the whole of Cork, a man who was thrown out of the Mayoralty, and a man who could not claim to have anything like the confidence of the majority of the people of Cork. This gentleman had been appointed. Why? The reason was that every time a Royal Duke came down to Cork, and the citizens did not want to receive him, Mr. Barry Shehan was always there to crawl in the gutter and kiss the sacred foot of that Royal Duke or anyone else that might come there. This Mr. Barry Shehan was a servile supporter of Earl Spencer in all his aots—good, bad, or indifferent.
THE CHAIRMANAgain I feel it necessary to remark that this is not an occasion upon which to attack the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Vote before the Committee is to provide for an increase of pauper lunatics. The hon. Gentleman has developed his observations to a great extent, and I must really beg of him now to confine them to the Vote before the Committee.
§ MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman would do him the justice to consider that in speaking that night he was not at all actuated by any desire either to transgress the Bides of the Committee, or to bring any adverse ruling unnecessarily upon his own head. If he had been led into transgressing the Rules of the Committee, he now asked the Committee to believe that it was wholly on account of the interest he felt in this case, and the desire he felt to put it as strongly as possible before the Committee. The point which he was endeavouring to put was that he considered the citizens of Cork had a perfect right to nominate, if not to elect, the men who 1012 should be upon the Asylums Board, and who should have the administration of the money which the Committee were now called upon to vote. It had already been pointed out to the Committee that the administrators of the Asylums Board were, to a man, not the representatives of the people, but the nominees of the Crown or the Crown's representatives. Now, the principle for which he contended was that this was public money. He and his hon. Friends would vote the money freely, because it was for the purpose of sustaining a necessary charitable and praiseworthy institution; and because it was for the purpose of maintaining an institution which was supposed to protect, but which he was afraid did not protect as well as it ought, those who had been deprived by the act of the Almighty of their senses. He and his hon. Friends acknowledged that this Vote was wanted; but while supporting it they did say, and he believed the majority of Englishmen and Scotchmen would endorse his statement, that it was only fair and just that where there was public money to be expended, that public money should be disbursed by people who were elected by the ratepayers, and who were responsible to the ratepayers. Now, the money that the Committee were going to vote, the money that had been voted, and, under the present system, all the money that would be voted, would be disbursed, not by the representatives of the people, but by a lot of decrepid, old noble Irish landlords, who had no sympathy with the people, and who had not got the confidence of the people, but who were only administrators of this Board simply because they had the favour of the Lord Lieutenant. The best proof of the truth of the statement that had been made that the Lord Lieutenant refused to appoint Mr. O'Brien because he was a Nationalist was to be found in the fact that he (Mr. W. Redmond) had endeavoured to press upon the attention of the Committee—namely, that the very last gentleman who was appointed by the Lord Lieutenant was a man who had been hissed in the streets of Cork. He (Mr. W. Redmond) was as anxious as any Member of the House to see peace and contentment reign throughout the length and breadth of Great Britain and Ireland. He had no desire to see the people of his country for ever distracted 1013 and discontented; but sincerely did he say-that as long as institutions of this kind were governed by the nominees of a foreign Lord, and not by the representatives of the people, so long would there be discontent, and so long would it be the unpleasant but necessary duty of Irish Representatives in that House to keep the British Parliament up late, and to keep some Members of the British Parliament out of their beds listening to Ireland's grievances. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would only say that the Lord Lieutenant would reconsider his determination in appointing Mr. O'Brien; if words would come from the Chief Secretary's lips to the effect that he considered that the nominees of the Corporation and citizens of Cork ought to be put upon the Board; if the right hon. Gentleman would only say that he would try that, for the future, the people's nominees should not be overlooked, his words would be read to-morrow with great pleasure throughout the whole of Ireland, and would do much towards making his stay in Ireland pleasant. But the right hon. Gentleman's dominant and persistent refusal to give hon. Members any encouragement that, in the future, money like this would be administered by the people's representatives was calculated to give new life to agitation and to discontent; indeed, he (Mr. W. Redmond) fervently hoped that the Irish people would keep up agitation until such grievances as he had detailed were wiped out once and for ever.
§ MR. LEAMYasked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) whether he really intended to give the Irish Representatives any explanation in regard to the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) with respect to Dr. Eames and the milkman? Of late, a great deal of attention in this country had been attracted to the management of lunatic asylums, and he hoped that this attention would be continued until some reform was brought about. But he asked hon. Gentlemen whether they really believed that if a doctor managing a private lunatic asylum in England was shown to have been guilty of such ignorance—to put it mildly—as Dr. Eames displayed in the cases of James Ellis 1014 French and the milkman, he would be allowed to continue in his office? Would any rich man, who was unfortunate enough to have some member of his family afflicted with insanity, put such a person in an asylum which was managed by a man who had shown himself so incapable of diagnosing insanity? But the asylum over which Dr. Eames had superintendence was a pauper lunatic asylum, and surely if any asylum needed consideration from the Members of the House of Commons, it was an asylum for pauper lunatics. In many cases, pauper lunatics had no friends at all, or, if they had, their friends were poor, and probably lived at a great distance; and, therefore, to leave pauper lunatics under the care of a man like Dr. Eames was positively disgraceful. Dr. Eames gave a certificate that James Ellis French was mad. It was proved that that was wrong, and that French was not mad. Then, again, Dr. Eames was charged with the most extraordinary conduct, of which he (Mr. Leamy) never heard until to-night. It was said that this Dr. Eames, on his own motion, dragged a milkman, who was in the habit of going to the asylum, within the gates, locked him up, and put him in a straight-waistcoat. This man, too, it had been shown, was not mad; and yet Dr. Eames was allowed to retain his position. What gain could there possibly be by the Chief Secretary for Ireland supporting actions of this kind. Suppose there was such a man in any asylum in London who was capable of such conduct, and that his conduct was brought under the notice of the House, would he be allowed to remain in his position 24 hours? No; he would be at once suspended. It appeared that Dr. Eames was to be retained. The least the Government could do was to institute an inquiry into the sanity of Dr. Eames himself, because either the man was a scoundrel or he was insane. He could not have given certificates with regard to two people, both of which it had been proved were false and wrong, if he knew his business. If he did not know his business, he should not be continued in office. His patients were only pauper lunatics; but surely they had a right to expect the protection of the House. The question of the non-appointment of Mr. O'Brien had been already dealt with, and he would not allude to it further, except to say that, 1015 unfortunately, it was impossible to expect that the Chief Secretary of Ireland would, in any way, recognize a man in whom the people of Ireland trusted. What he wished to lay special stress upon was a matter which had common humanity for its advocate. He asked, whether these unfortunate pauper lunatics were to be put under the care of a man who was thoroughly incompetent? If the right hon. Gentleman wished to get his Vote to-night, some information must be afforded with regard to this man, Dr. Eames. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was not prepared to give them an explanation, he (Mr. Leamy) would consider himself justified in moving that the Chairman do report Progress.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that the facts relating to French's insanity were somewhat complicated. The original certificate was signed by three medical men, of whom Dr. Eames was one. Dr. Eames was selected to examine French, because he was an eminent and experienced man, whose opinion would naturally carry weight. At the trial, he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) believed that Dr. Wheeler, one of the most eminent doctors in Ire land, gave independent evidence to the same effect. That evidence, however, was contradicted by other physicians; but there was nothing in that to show that Dr. Eames behaved like a rogue or lunatic, as had been inferred. Whether Dr. Eames acted wisely or not he was not prepared to say. The Court decided French was sane, and, therefore, it must be presumed that Dr. Eames was in error. Certainly Dr. Eames had some ground to go upon, seeing that his opinion was assured by other medical men. With regard to the case of the milk man, of which he had not heard much——
§ MR. HEALYDoes not the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland know all about it?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he understood that the milkman brought an action against Dr. Eames, and that at the trial Dr. Eames obtained a verdict.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made an extraordinary statement with regard to French, for he had said that French might or might not be mad. Was that, or was it not, 1016 the statement of the right hon. Gentleman? If there was a doubt as to French's insanity, was not the right hon. Gentleman, as the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, bound to have an immediate inquiry made into the matter? The Lord Lieutenant was the dispenser of mercy in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman was his Secretary. In order to save this man, Dr. Eames, it was now said that French, who had been found guilty of a most horrible crime, might or might not be mad. What did that involve?
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that French might, or might not, have been mad at the time; he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) was not competent to pronounce an opinion upon the subject. All he had to say was, that there was a certain amount of medical evidence for French's madness, and a certain amount of medical evidence against it. Dr. Eames went for his madness.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) had stated that French might or might not be mad at the time. He (Mr. Healy) understood that the present view of the right hon. Gentleman was that French had since recovered sanity.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, he had no view on the subject at all. He did not mean to express his own opinion. How could he say whether French was mad or not? What he said was, that there were certain eminent doctors for French's madness, and that there were others against it. The case was brought up for trial, and it was determined that the evidence was stronger in favour of the man not being mad than otherwise.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that Dr. Eames was a brother Freemason of French's, and he was the first person in Ireland who was chosen by the Lord Lieutenant to test the sanity of French. The certificate which Dr. Eames gave with regard to French's condition was dated from the Cork District Lunatic Asylum, and Dr. Eames's signature was the first signature on the document. This, however, was not merely a question of the man's madness. Madness might have been feigned by French; but it must be remembered that the certificate practically divided itself into four branches. The certificate was in these words—
1017
We are of opinion that he is suffering from I mental disease and softening of the brain, and great nervous debility, with impairment of bodily health, and that from this infirmity of mind and body he is incapable of discharging the duties of his station, and that such infirmity is likely to be permanent.If it was a certificate of the man's madness, he could understand it being said that the man might have been feigning at the time, and that possibly, in the view of the doctors, he might have been an insane person; but Dr. Eames certified also as to infirmity of body, and that the infirmity was likely to be permanent; and therefore the question he (Mr. Healy) put to the Committee was this—"Is a person who has given a certificate of that character a proper person to be in charge of a lunatic asylum?" If a man like that was in charge of lunatic patients from day to day, was he not likely to be a judge of insanity? If he was not, why did he occupy his present position? French might have deceived Dr. Eames as to his sanity; but how could he deceive him as to infirmity of body? Surely a doctor was, at all events, a judge of the soundness of body and limb; surely he could tell whether a man's body was in a fairly sound state. A man could hardly feign that he was such an infirm cripple that he was quite incapable of discharging the duties of his situation, and that his infirmity was likely to be permanent. He asked any Member of the Committee who was not fettered by official relations, whether a doctor of this kind was one who ought to have charge of a large pauper lunatic asylum, containing hundreds of patients—an asylum upon the Board of which the Government refused to allow a single representative of the people to be nominated by such an independent Body as the Cork Corporation? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that Dr. Eames was acquitted. Why, as a matter of fact, Dr. Eames paid a sum of money into Court, and the jury found that, as the man was only imprisoned for a few hours, that sum was sufficient compensation for the imprisonment. There was no actual acquittal. It was not denied that Dr. Eames forcibly imprisoned the man. It was not denied that Dr. Eames ordered the man to be straight-waist-coated, and, therefore, was he (Mr. Healy) to be told that because Dr. 1018 Eames escaped with such a small penalty he was a proper man to have charge of a lunatic asylum? The sum and substance of the whole thing was that Dr. Eames was a Freemason. If he had been a Catholic he would have been turned out of his office within 24 hours. Could the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland get up, and, at the Table of the House, attempt to convince hon. Members who knew the full facts of the case? Why, the right hon. Gentleman had not even convinced his own supporters with reference to these facts. It was required to ascertain the sanity or insanity of one of the worst scoundrels in the entire country, and it was of the utmost importance that the ablest man should be selected to make the examination. The whole country was ringing with the case of James Ellis French. A popular newspaper in Ireland had attacked the man, and the whole of England, as well as of Ireland, rang with the case of this County Inspector, who was charged with the most heinous and terrible crime, and then, in order to shield him, the Government employed Dr. Eames; and when it was found that Dr. Eames had made a great mistake, the Government, through the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, attempted to screen him by saying that French might or might not have been mad at the time. According to his sentence, French was now undergoing penal servitude for two years; he was supposed to be breaking stones and picking oakum, and doing all the other terrible and dreadful tasks imposed on a convict; and yet he was the man of whom Dr. Eames had expressed the opinion that, with his infirmity of mind and body, he was incapable of discharging the duties of his situation, and that such infirmity was likely to be permanent. All he (Mr. Healy) could say was, that a Government who first of all employed a man like Dr. Eames to screen a man like French, and then, when Dr. Eames had done all the dirty work, turned round to screen him by saying that French might or might not have been mad at the time the certificate was given, was just worthy of being a Government represented by Lord Spencer.
§ DR. LYONSsaid, that Dr. Eames was a gentleman whom he had had the pleasure of knowing for several years 1019 past, and to whose character he could bear testimony. Dr. Eames had filled a responsible and important position for a considerable period, with, so far as he (Dr. Lyons) knew, complete satisfaction to all concerned. He believed Dr. Eames to be absolutely incapable of lending himself to any sort of a sham certificate, such as it was supposed had been furnished in the case of James Ellis French. The case of French was by no means uncommon. It very often happened that a man for a considerable time successfully shammed lunacy, and hon. Members knew, from the correspondence of French which had been published recently, that he was a man capable of exercising a considerable amount of ingenuity. He (Dr. Lyons) believed it was a part of French's case, as indeed it was a common part of such cases, to attempt to starve himself, and thereby diminish his general bodily condition.
§ DR. LYONSsaid, he nevertheless believed that French attempted to starve himself, and to reduce his physical condition as to weight, and to produce an appearance of delicacy. It must be admitted that he succeeded in imposing on the physicians who reported on his case. What had happened in French's case was by no means an uncommon occurrence in the history of lunacy. He (Dr. Lyons) personally had been aware of such eases, and it was only by long and repeated examination that he had succeeded in exposing them. What he desired particularly to say was that from his own personal knowledge of Dr. Eames—a knowledge which extended over a very considerable period—Dr. Eames was totally incapable of lending himself to any such misrepresentation as had been alleged by his hon. Friends sitting on the opposite Benches. Dr. Eames had pursued his profession with satisfaction to all with whom he came in contact, and he had certainly discharged the very laborious and onerous duties of his position as head of a great lunatic asylum with great satisfaction to the Governors and Directors. That a man, 1020 under certain circumstances, should be misled with regard to well-acted lunacy was not to be wondered at, when they considered the extraordinary ingenuity which persons sometimes adopted.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, that all the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin City (Dr. Lyons) had said was that, in his opinion, Dr. Eames was incapable of lending himself to a sham certificate. Allowing, then, that that was not a sham certificate, it only showed that the man who made it was incompetent to diagnose a case of lunacy. [Dr. LYONS: He made a mistake.] Possibly, he made a mistake; but if this man had the experience of lunatics which the Committee were told he had, he should be the last man in the land to make a mistake. The hon. Member had led the Committee to suppose that French confused the mind of Dr. Eames, because he was in goal and tried to starve himself. Now, that was not the fact, because, when the certificate was given, French had not been arrested. Now, as to the case of the milkman, he (Mr. Leamy) thought they had a right to a statement of the exact details from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker). In the case of French, Dr. Eames made a wrong certificate, and in the case of the milkman, he, of his own motion, seized the man, whose business brought him to the lunatic asylum every day, threw him into a cell, and put a straight-waistcoat upon him. Now, he (Mr. Leamy) wanted an explanation of these matters. Dr. Eames might have made a mistake in the case of French, and he might have given a certificate, because he was invited to do so; but, in the second case, he acted entirely upon his own responsibility; he outraged the law by seizing the man and imprisoning him, and his ground for doing so was that the man was a dangerous lunatic. He (Mr. Leamy) wanted to know whether the Government intended to keep such a man over an asylum of pauper lunatics; or were the Committee to understand that it did not matter who superintended pauper lunatics, so long as the man happened to be a friend of the Government? Dr. Eames might be an estimable gentleman in private life; but there was one thing very remarkable, and that was, that every Government official who was attacked, from these 1021 Benches was a man of the most stainless character. [Mr. HEALY: Until he is found out.] Now, with regard to the second case brought against Dr. Eames—namely, that as to the milkman, he and his hon. Friend demanded an explanation from the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that the examination of French was made for the purpose of ascertaining whether the man was or was not capable of discharging his duties. Very much more was involved than the sanity of the man, and it was well the Committee should know that the opinion of Dr. Eames was attested by two other eminent medical men.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)Now, he had been asked about the case of the milkman who had been detained at the asylum. The man represented himself as a fit patient for the lunatic asylum. The warder took charge of him for a short time, and Dr. Eames allowed him to be put into a cell for a few hours. The man afterwards brought an action against him, and Dr. Eames lodged £5 in Court, which the Jury found was sufficient; and it was under these circumstances that Dr. Eames had been so violently assailed.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that if what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had stated were correct, Dr. Eames had committed no act whatever, but had simply allowed the warder to act. He would be glad to know whether that was a correct statement of the case? Were they to understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ire land, professing to know all the facts of the case, deliberately stated that Dr. Eames had not imprisoned the man; that it was the warder who did it? He (Mr. Callan) understood that that was the very reverse of the truth. Was it true that the hon. and learned Gentleman had the audacity——
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he withdrew the word "audacity," and would substitute for it "effrontery."
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he had never heard a more extraordinary statement from the Treasury Bench than that of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. Dr. Eames, at all events, gave a certificate that French had softening of the brain, great nervous debility, and infirmity of mind. He need not question then the bona fides of the Government for calling in Dr. Eames; it was not necessary for his purpose to do so. With regard to the milkman, he was surprised that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland should make the statement he had made. Had he been counsel for the man, he (Mr. Healy) had no doubt he would have made a very different statement to the jury. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the man wanted to become a patient, that the warder took him in, and that Dr. Eames allowed him to be kept in a cell a few hours, and that Dr. Eames had paid £5 into Court for damages in the action which was brought against him. The facts of the case were these. The man wanted to tender for a supply of milk to the asylum; he went there, and it would appear that, because he tendered for milk, they treated him as a lunatic. But why had Dr. Eames paid £5 into Court, if he were an innocent man? He need not have paid one farthing. Now, he (Mr. Healy) asked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he could expect that hon. Members on those Benches could give credit to his statement, which just showed how the Law Officers appraised the intelligence of the House of Commons? Any story would do for the House of Commons; they thought anything would go down with those whom they supposed to be blockheads in the House of Commons. He said it was really astonishing that the hon. and learned Gentleman should come forward, at that time of the morning, and tell the Committee such a yarn. Dr. Eames had proved himself to be incompetent both with regard to the certificate in the case of French and the treatment of this milkman. It was absolutely necessary that some person of independent character, like Mr. O'Brien, should have a seat upon the Board of the asylum; and he would advise the ratepayers that, until they had this, they should not pay one penny of the contributions demanded of them for the 1023 equipment and salary of men like Dr. Eames.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he should like to know whether it was permitted to warders to put people into straight-jackets and cells without instructions from the prison doctors? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland said that the man asked to be taken in as a patient, and that Dr. Eames allowed it to be done. But was that a candid statement? Were those the real facts of the case? It appeared to him that, throughout the course of this discussion, there had been, on the part of the right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken from the Treasury Bench, a distinct want of candour. Was it candid to tell the Committee that the reason why they had not appointed Mr. O'Brien to be one of the Governors, was that the Board of Governors was already sufficiently full? Would it not have been better to say that the Lord Lieutenant did not like to have imposed upon him representatives of this kind? And he put it to the Committee whether they did not fully believe that that was the case? Might they not hope that, at a future time, there would be a little more candour on the Treasury Bench with regard to these statements? Was it not hard for the Committee to listen to, and be expected to swallow, such stories as this? He (Mr. Sullivan) said that Mr. O'Brien was well known to be a reputable citizen, a man of integrity and honour, whose character was not in the slightest degree blackened because he had fallen under the censure of the Lord Lieutenant. On the contrary, his character stood out stronger than it did before he had fallen under the censure. He would not, however, dwell further upon the subject than to observe that the Committee might as well have been treated to a chapter from the Arabian Nights, or Alice in Wonderland, as to such stories as these—that the Lord Lieutenant considered the Board of Governors was already sufficiently full, and that that was the reason he had not appointed Mr. O'Brien. He (Mr. Sullivan) said that it was not for the credit of Parliament that such stories should be bandied about by Gentlemen occupying the high positions of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon. Members on those Benches regarded it as an outrage, and thought that it ought to be so re- 1024 garded, that the Committee of that House should be asked to listen to stories so bare of plausibility.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he had heard the greater part of the conversation with regard to this matter, and as the case had been put by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, it seemed that Dr. Eames was either an ass or a scoundrel. He might take his choice. He was either perfectly stupid and ignorant of his profession, or he was a dishonest person. He (Mr. Biggar) did not blame the Government for refusing to examine into the case, under the circumstances. If nothing had been known of the character of Dr. Eames at the time, the Government would have been justified in asking him to examine French; but the difficulty was that, knowing now that he had been proved to be either dishonest or incompetent, they should continue him in his position. That was the ground on which he found fault with the Government, and it was in keeping with the whole course of their conduct in matters of this kind. With regard to the lunatic asylum at Cork, it was known that the persons who were Governors of that asylum did not pay any proportion of the rates. They were landlords, and not occupiers, who did not contribute in proportion to the rates which supported the lunatic asylum; and they knew that the Government, notwithstanding their alleged desire to give local self-government to the people of Ireland, and to extend the franchise amongst them, continued to uphold the present system. He thought they gave very little evidence of their desire to extend popular rights and liberties by their conduct in connection with the Cork Lunatic Asylum. Because, instead of appointing to one of the Governorships of that asylum a person who had the confidence of his fellow-citizens, they appointed a man who was most unpopular with them. He would ask the hon. Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) if he would give the Committee the benefit of his opinion with regard to the conduct of Dr. Eames, and whether, under the circumstances, the Government were justified in continuing his salary.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) was not in Order in calling on an hon. Member to speak.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, in that case, he would ask the Chairman to call on the hon. Baronet to state whether he was satisfied that French was a person of unsound mind, and whether he thought the case of the unfortunate milkman who was detained was one which could be justified, and whether he thought the Government were justified in screening the conduct of Dr. Eames? Hon. Members on those Benches thought the Government were, on these grounds, to be censured; and he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £200, the amount of Dr. Eames' salary for three months.
§
Motion made, and Question put,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £690, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, in aid of the Local Cost of Maintenance of Pauper Lunatics in Ireland."—(Mr. Biggar.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 61: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 51.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)It is necessary that I should now explain the position in which we stand as to Supply. The Committee will remember that last year the question as to the time within which certain Votes must be taken was fully discussed and considered. The result was that as on the Thursday corresponding to the present Thursday we had not finished the Supplementary Estimates, we had to take the Supplementary Estimates on the following Saturday, with the scandal of having to sit into Sunday. I think we ought to finish to-night the Supplementary Estimates, over which, I am bound to say, we have been spending an unusual amount of time, instead of taking them on Saturday, and possibly having to repeat the scandal of finishing them on Sunday morning. If the Committee are desirous of knowing why there is a special necessity for that being done, I may say that there is even more necessity for it this year than last. There was not so 1026 much controversy last year over the Navy Votes, and it was found possible to take a Vote on Account also on the same day; but I think everyone who knows what has to be discussed on the Navy Vote will see that it is very doubtful whether we shall be able to do that this year. Therefore, as next week is the last week in which we can take the Army and Navy Votes, it will be absolutely necessary to give the whole of it to Supply. It is therefore a matter of urgent necessity that we should finish the Supplementary Estimates to-night; and I can only say that I am quite ready to sit up all night for the purpose, rather than repeat what we did last year, and finish them on Sunday.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) had omitted one important fact—namely, that last year the Session commenced on the 6th of February. This year, in consequence of the extraordinary call made upon hon. Members at the end of last year, the Session did not begin until the 19th of February. Where was the necessity that the whole of next week should be given up to the Army and Navy Estimates. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might easily arrange to apportion some of next week to the Supplementary Estimates. And, again, why should to-morrow's Sitting be given up to the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, for which, notwithstanding that there was no need to hurry in the matter, the Government had obtained precedence? He asked the right hon. Gentleman to put down Supply for to-morrow as the first Order of the Day, and retire the Order for Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. He had sat in the House during 10½ hours already, and certainly did not wish to sit up all night for the purpose of passing the Supplementary Estimates.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)We cannot assent to the proposal of the hon. Member, for Supply has no privilege except on Mondays and Thursdays. The effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be, that we should not have the same means of going into Supply on the day he names which we have on Mondays and Thursdays.
§ MR. SEXTONasked what would be the effect if hon. Members undertook 1027 to make no Motions on going into Supply?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I am afraid that is a matter beyond me. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot control or govern the House in that respect; and it is, therefore, quite out of my power to assume that any other days in the week will be devoted to Supply but Mondays and Thursdays.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman applied only to the Supplementary Estimates; he had not spoken of a Vote on Account.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I stated that last year we did take the Navy Estimates and the Vote on Account on the same night, because although there was a great deal of discussion on the Army Estimates, on the Navy Estimates there was very little discussion indeed.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave as a reason for not taking these Votes to-morrow that Motions might be put down on going into Committee of Supply. Well, presumably the right hon. Gentleman had full control over his own Members; and as the only Members of the Tory Party now present were the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. N. Fowler), neither of whom were likely to hunger with any very urgent desire for an opportunity to put down a Motion, and the Irish Members were not likely to put down Motions—taking these facts into consideration, and knowing that Motions could not be put down for tomorrow, unless Notice were given of them now, he hoped the course pointed out would be adopted by the Government. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT said, Motions could be put down.] If that were so, of course it could not be helped. At any rate, it was better to take the chance that Motions on going into Committee of Supply would break down at a reasonable time than to refuse the reasonable request of the Irish Members. It was better to do that than to drop the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill at a reasonable hour to take Diplomatic and other Votes, in which the Irish Members were not particularly 1028 interested, and then expect them to sit up to a very unreasonable hour discussing Votes upon which they had a great deal to say. It was stated by the Government that the Votes Irish Members wanted to consider would take a long time to discuss; but he would remind the Committee that the Diplomatic Vote had lasted four hours, and that, at the best, the discussion upon it was only of an academic character. The amount of money now involved was £3,500,000; and, in his opinion, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted that sum to-night, he was hardly likely to get it. There was material enough in these Votes to enable the Irish Members to discuss many points for a considerable time. Even if they sat up all night, they might find themselves unable to dispose of all these subjects; and it might be necessary to sit up for two nights—that was to say, if the Government thought to cram these Votes down their throats. Last year the Irish Members, at the request of the Government, who offered a compromise, forewent their discussion; but months wore on, and they ultimately found that absolutely nothing was given to them in return for the course they had taken. His experience of wrangles of this kind was that they came to no good, and his advice to the Government was—"Go to bed early, if you can." When these wrangles were continued, it was not unfrequently the case that towards the close Members of the Liberal Party got disgusted with the business, and put pressure on their Leaders to bring the wrangle to a close. Moreover, the officers of the House found their health ruined by these arrangements, and the result was a general cave in all along the line. Well, he (Mr. Healy) was always in favour of amicable arrangements—[Laughter, and "Hear, hear!"] He was only giving an opinion for himself—for no one else. He approved of amicable arrangements; and he would, therefore, suggest that they should dispose of the Superannuation Vote, the Inland Revenue Vote, and the Telegraphic Vote to-night, and leave the Civil Contingency Vote and the Temporary Commission Vote to Monday. In the Vote for Temporary Commissions an important question would arise. The Irish Members had come down to-night, not expecting the 1029 Diplomatic Vote would last so long, and believing that they would have had an opportunity of discussing the boundary question. The material to be used in this discussion was voluminous. Then, in the Civil Contingencies Vote, he found such an item as this—
The Right Hon. A. W. Peel, equipage on election as Speaker of the House of Commons, £1,000.He should like to have some explanation of that. Then there was another item—Payment to Surgeon Wheeler for attendance on Mr. Shaen Carter in pursuance of a verdict against the Crown given in the Court of Exchequer in November 1883, £1,147 18s.That also would have to be remarked upon; and, lastly, there was—The compassionate grant to Mrs. Eliza Colgan in consideration of loss caused by the misconduct of Crown Solicitor in Ireland, £250,on which they would have a good bit to say. These were matters of importance in themselves; and he hardly thought it was the way to treat the House of Commons, to take it by surprise at that hour of the morning, and inform it, for the first time, that it was intended to ask to-night for this £3,500,000. It would have been more candid for the Government to have informed the Irish Members earlier that they intended to apply for all these Votes, and then Members would have known what to do. The great argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be that an All-night Sitting had led to a "Sunday scandal." Well, he (Mr. Healy) thought, with regard to Sitting on Sunday, that the better the day the better the deed. His recollection of what occurred during the last Sitting which ran into the Sunday was, that it was remarkably enjoyable. He (Mr. Healy) did not belong to the Sunday Rest Association, therefore he had no objection to the Votes being postponed until Saturday; and if it should be necessary to go on with the debates after 12 o'clock, he saw no reason to believe that his constituents would object to having their grievances exposed and discussed a minute after midnight any more than a minute before midnight. Let the disputed Votes be put 1030 down for Saturday. To his mind, it was much more important that the Government should, at that hour of the night, enter into a friendly understanding as to the discussions to be taken in Committee, and that they should put their heads together for the purpose of arriving at a general friendly understanding, and that they should postpone the Votes, and take them either tomorrow or Saturday.
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, that, under existing circumstances, it seemed to him that a Saturday Sitting was absolutely necessary; because, supposing even though they remained there all night, the items before them would require so much discussion that they would of necessity involve a Saturday Sitting. No matter how much goodwill might be shown in this matter, it was impossible to hope that a discussion on all the items could be disposed of in a night, unless some arrangement were concluded between the different Parties in the House. He understood the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that it was impossible to bring on the Supplementary Estimates to-morrow, because Notices of Motion would be put down, and would have to be disposed of before the Speaker could leave the Chair. He did not think there would be any waste of time of particular importance, so far as he could gather. He (Mr. Molloy) could foresee that, under any circumstances, they would have to take a Saturday Sitting. As the Irish Members were willing to discuss the Votes on Saturday, and as the Government were willing to make an effort on their part, surely the compromise suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) could be agreed to. Let them have these Votes brought on in an orderly and proper manner, and disposed of on Saturday, instead of being fiddled with to-night.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, if he could see an opening for a reasonable compromise he should be glad to accept it. He thought, from what had fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it was possible to meet them half way. He noticed that there were a good many disputed items on the Civil Contingencies Vote, and it was also suggested that 1031 there were questions to be raised on the Vote for the Boundary Commission. But perhaps hon. Gentlemen had not observed that, as there was a Bill before the House in which the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners were embodied, those recommendations could not be considered in Supply. The House would have to discuss them on the Bill; and the only question that hon. Members could discuss in Supply would be the constitution of the Commission. He would not, therefore, propose to postpone that Vote; but he would agree to postpone the Vote on Account. If they took the rest of the Votes before the Committee, the Vote for General Gordon and others which were purely formal, then, on Monday, they could proceed with the Civil Contingencies Vote, the Vote on Account, and the Excesses Vote, on the understanding that the House would allow them to be taken at whatever hour they might come on.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was of opinion—and he believed his view was shared by hon. Gentlemen who sat near him—that they had better accept the offer made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in such a conciliatory spirit.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that, if they did so, it was rather because they were always ready to recognize any evidence of an amicable spirit on the part of the Government, than that they accepted all the conclusions of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were perfectly sound and irresistible with regard to all the Supplementary Votes. It was necessary that these Votes should be taken on a certain day, in order that the Appropriation Bill might be got through before the end of the financial year; but he was at a loss to know how it was that a Vote on Account, which related to the next financial year, was so absolutely necessary.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ (7.) £107, Redemption of Consolidated Fund Allowances.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to call attention to this Vote, his object being to insure a full and accurate statement 1032 in the Estimates. He saw in the Vote the following item:—
For commutation of a yearly payment of £2 1s. 10d. to the lord of the manor of Appuldurcombe under 36 and 37 Vic. c. 57, and for the purpose of sufficient Capital Stock of Three Per Cents. Annuities for transference to the official Trustees of Charitable Funds to enable them to take over the payment of a yearly allowance of £1 12s. to the Master of Oswestry School under the Act 46 and 47 Vic. c. 56, s. 18, £107.It would be seen that this Vote of £107 was made up of two items; separate statements were given with regard to these; but the Vote was a lump sum for the two. There could be no question about paying the item, because the sum was one which they were not only bound to spend, but which probably they had spent already; but his object was to have everything in these items stated as distinctly as it could be.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, he agreed that it would have been much better if the amounts had been put down separately. If he had any power in the future, he would take care that they were put down separately.
§ Vote agreed to.