§
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £8,409, 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, for the Repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there was an item contained in this Vote upon which he should ask the Committee to divide—namely, the item of £548 9s. 4d. for Fees paid on the Installation of His Royal Highness Prince George Frederick 1343 Ernest Albert of Wales as Knight of the Garter. There was another item of a similar objectionable kind—namely, an item of £360 for special packets for the conveyance of distinguished persons. He thought it was ridiculous for the country to be called upon to pay a large sum of money to some private individual whenever Her Majesty bestowed the Order of the Garter upon him. He would not object to Her Majesty conferring the Garter upon any Member of the Royal Family, or upon the whole country if she chose; but what he did object to was that when Her Majesty took occasion to confer the Garter upon a Member of the Royal Family the country should be charged the sum of £548 9s. 4d. He supposed that these fees went to the Garter King-at-Arms, or some other officer who ought to be wiped off the face of the earth. As he had said before, it was perfectly ridiculous that the country should be called upon to pay these sums of money. If they were necessary at all they ought to be paid by the person upon whom the Order of the Garter was conferred. He would, therefore, propose to reduce the Vote by the sum of £548 9s. 4d. and also by the next item of £360.
THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Member would not be in Order in moving the reduction of the Vote by two separate items at the same time.
MR. LABOUOHEREasked if he would be precluded from afterwards moving the reduction of the item of £360 in the event of the Motion for reducing the Vote by £548 9s. 4d. being negatived?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he proposed to reduce it by two separate sums which amounted to £908 9s. 4d., but he had received an intimation that it would not be competent for him to propose the reduction of the two items together; and as the first item was the larger sum, he wanted to know whether, if his Motion were negatived in regard to that sum, he would then be precluded from asking the Committee to agree to the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £360, which constituted the second item? Personally he had no desire to take two divisions, especially at that late hour of the night, and probably the Chancellor of the 1344 Exchequer would prefer that the decision of the Committee should be taken upon the two items together.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he was afraid that by the Rules of the House it would be necessary to decide upon one item at a time.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREwished to know whether, in that case, he would be precluded from moving the reduction of the Vote by the minor sum?
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member would be in Order in moving the reduction of the larger sum first, and of the smaller sum afterwards.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that, under those circumstances, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £548 9s. 4d.
§ MR. SEXTONwished to know, as a point of Order, whether the Motion to reduce the Vote by £548 9s. 4d. would preclude any other Member from moving the reduction of the Vote by a larger sum? He himself desired to move the reduction of it by the sum of £ 1,147 18s., payable 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.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, it would still be competent for the hon. Member to move a reduction to that effect.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Item of £548 9s. 4d., for Fees paid on the Installation of His Royal Highness Prince George Frederick Ernest Albert of Wales as Knight of the Garter, he omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, that though it had always been the practice to include these fees in the Estimates, there was the strongest reason for doing so in the present case, which was that of a Royal Prince. The fees themselves varied from £130 down to £1, and were paid to Garter King-at-Arms and other officers who attended the installation.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREremarked, that, if his hon. Friend could give no further information upon the matter, he should certainly divide the Committee against this item.
§ MR. PICTONsaid, he did not think that the Secretary to the Treasury had improved matters by the explanation he had given. There was a strong feel- 1345 ing throughout the country that the public money ought not to be voted to individuals except in return for work done, and the work done ought to represent value received. The matter was very different now from what it used to be in olden times, when these fashions and ceremonies were of much more importance. [Cries of "Oh!"] He knew that whenever an hon. Member alluded in that House to the opinions of the millions outside, a large number of whom were about to be enfranchised for the first time, he was received with something like ridicule. Nevertheless, the opinion of these people was of great importance, and would prove to be of the highest importance hereafter. However foolish it might be thought within that House, nothing created so much irritation of feeling in the minds of the working classes as these petty Votes on behalf of distinguished persons who were not believed to have done any work that would justify the payment. He would certainly support the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in an earnest protest against this Vote.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORagreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, that the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury rather aggravated than mitigated the absurdity of the first item in the Vote. It only required the explanation of the hon. Member to make the whole proceeding much more extravagant than the wildest creation of Mr. Gilbert and Sir Arthur Sullivan. What was the Vote? It had been described as one that was necessary in order to carry out an ancient custom, and the money appeared to have been expended in buying banners, helmets, and swords—exactly what the stage manager at the Savoy did in placing upon the boards one of the operas of the two distinguished gentlemen he had had just named. He wondered how an expenditure of this sort could be tolerated with patience by any enlightened Assembly. He thought everybody would acknowledge that they had now made a certain progress in civilization, and that it was not necessary to adopt nowadays the dress and customs of the Middle Ages. What would be thought of the hon. Gentleman himself if he took it into his head to come down to the House preceded by banners, wearing doublet 1346 and hose, and accompanied by all the paraphernalia which might have distinguished a Secretary of State in the days of James I. He saw that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) laughed at that suggestion. He would ask the Committee to imagine the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) presenting himself to their notice at the Bar of the House in a "nodding plume," with his casque down, with retainers bearing banners, helmets, and swords, and all of it paid for out of the public money! The whole thing belonged to the region of opera bouffe, and not to the civilization of the 19th century. He hoped the Committee would strike a blow at such ridiculous absurdity.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had referred to the late Secretary to the Treasury. That hon. Gentleman had had the advantage of defending these Votes when he occupied a seat upon the Treasury Bench; but now the Committee were able to look upon him in a different light from the seat he at present occupied below the Gangway. He certainly should like to know what were the present views entertained by the hon. Gentleman. They knew very well what his views were when he sat as a Minister above the Gangway, and they were very anxious now to watch his performances from the seat he occupied at present below the Gangway. He certainly hoped the Committee would receive some guidance from the hon. Gentleman, and that he would be able to assure the Committee, in continuing to support these Votes, that he had no sympathy with the opposition which was raised by the Radical Members. Personally, he (Mr. Healy) did not think that if they got good government it ought to be too cheap, and he would have no objection to pay £3,000 or £4,000 by way of extras in order to secure good government; but, at the same time, he thought it was desirable that they should thrash a matter of this kind out to its logical conclusion, and see what it was they were called upon to vote. While there was a Monarchy, it must be taken for better or worse. If it were necessary to have banners and helmets, he should vote for them; but he rather fancied these things were out of date.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 56: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 54.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that, no doubt, the persons conveyed across the Channel in special packets, and for which service the sum of £360 was charged, were very distinguished persons; but the House had never been told on what ground those distinguished persons had special packets provided to convey them between Dover and Calais, and why, if they desired those special facilities, they should not pay for them themselves. He was aware that it had been said before now on the Treasury Bench, and would be said again that evening, no doubt, that Her Majesty had power to use the ships of the Royal Navy for this purpose, and that it was cheaper to hire a special packet for £40 rather than to have a man-of-war to carry Members of the Royal Family across the Channel. But he would point out that the practice of employing men-of-war would not exist very long, because everyone knew that there would be proposals for a reduction in the Navy if any of them were used for the purpose. There was in the Estimate a charge of £40 for conveying the Duchess of Mecklenburg from Calais to Dover, and a charge of £40 for bringing her back from Dover to Calais. With the highest respect, he did not see why the country should be called upon to pay £40 whenever this lady wished to visit this country. She was born, it was true, in this country, but he believed she had married a German Prince and that she was living in Germany; moreover, he believed that Parliament had voted her an income. The charge he was referring to, under the circumstances, rather hampered the pleasure felt at seeing the Duchess of Mecklenburg in this country. He hoped that the protests which were always raised on the part of Members of that House in regard to special packets for the conveyance of distinguished persons might be listened to. As an hon. Member (Mr. Picton) speaking on the last Vote had said, it was these little things which made the people angry. It was because the sums were small that they thought 1348 the distinguished persons could pay the amount themselves. When the distinguished persons went to the Continent, they started generally from Charing Cross; it might be that they travelled by special train, but whether that was so or not, they paid for it. He did not see why these absurdities should continue year after year in the shape of calls upon the House for payment, and, therefore, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £360, the amount of charge for the special packets.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Item of £360, for Special Packets for the conveyance of Distinguished Persons, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—[Mr. Labouchere.)
§ MR. MOLLOYsaid, he should like to know why the Royal Yachts were not used for this service? He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it was not a fact that the three Royal Yachts were at the present time under repairs as usual? He believed that in the Estimates of last year they were charged for the repair of each of the Royal Yachts. He should like to hear from the hon. Gentleman if the Royal Yachts were under repair when this expense was incurred, and, if not, why they were not employed for carrying these distinguished persons across the Channel?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUEE (Mr. CHILDERS)said, that when this Vote was discussed last year, it would be in the recollection of hon. Members that he promised to look into some of the questions connected with it, and particularly with regard to the point just raised. He had gone carefully into the question, in order to see whether it would be possible to substitute for the special packets employed one of the Royal Yachts, and he would state to the Committee plainly what was the result of his inquiry. He found that for a very long time it had been customary for Members of the Royal Family, going to or returning from the Continent, to be conveyed in vessels of the Royal Navy, and formerly two or three sailing ships were used expressly for that purpose. Hon. Members would remember that in the early days of the use of steam, there were no contract steamers, but small steam vessels of the 1349 Navy were used; and that subsequently it was arranged that contracts should be entered into with the Steamship Companies for the service. Accordingly, these small naval steamers, and subsequently contract chart steamers, were used as the old sailing ships had been. He might remind the Committee that there was at the present time a charge in the Estimates for the conveyance of the suite of Her Majesty and her horses and carriages. Now, the question had been asked by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Molloy) whether it would be more economical to make use of the Royal Yachts for this service. But he would point out that those Yachts drew too much water to admit of their being used between Dover and Calais, and between Folkestone and Boulogne. Were vessels specially built for the purpose, he was satisfied it would be less economical; and, therefore, having stated the ancient custom, and what he believed would be the result of the change suggested, he trusted the Vote would be allowed to pass.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 54: Majority 24.—(Div. List, No. 55.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that, no doubt, the fulness of the right hon. Gentleman's reply on the subject of conveyance of distinguished persons had been appreciated by the Committee; but there were several other items in this Vote which gave rise to some speculation, and as to which he would like to hear an explanation. The first item was a charge for Surgeon Wheeler for attendance upon Mr. Shaen Carter in November, 1883. He asked why it was necessary to pay for attendance on Mr. Shaen Carter, and if it were necessary, why one of the most eminent surgeons in Ireland had been engaged to attend him? He believed that he was the victim of an outrage; but many other outrages upon persons had been committed, and the Government had not thought fit to take the victims under their especial care. He and his hon. Friends desired to know what were the special facts which induced the Government to assume financial responsibilities with regard to the injuries of Mr. Carter? Why had the Government repeatedly 1350 refused to pay for injuries caused by the weapons of their agents in Ireland? Hon. Gentlemen on those Benches knew of men, women, and children who had been wounded by the bayonets of the Government police, and they knew of innocent persons who had been cast into prison and afterwards released; but the Government had never placed 5s. on the Estimates to compensate them. He thought they were entitled to claim that compensation should be given in cases where the Government were responsible for the injuries inflicted. Then there was a charge for a gratuity of £500 to the Commissioner of Valuation for services given to the Government, and he complained that there was nothing whatever in the Estimates to show what the services were. He should be glad to receive an explanation of this charge. He found also a charge for the collection of compensation and fines under the Act of 1882, with regard to which he said that the collectors had not very much to do, according to the testimony of the Judges. He thought this money might very well have been collected without any charge being placed on the country, and he would be glad to hear when the money had been collected, and under what circumstances the charge was made. He would also be glad to know what was the misconduct on the part of the Crown Solicitor for which Mrs. Eliza Colgan received a compassionate grant of £250. There was one other item in the Vote to which he took exception—namely, £1,000 to
The Right Honourable A. W. Peel, equipage money on election as Speaker of the House of Commons.In the Public Service of this country there appeared to be a great tendency to multiply the number of outfits; indeed, there was one noble Lord who received as many as three outfits in one year.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman was not in Order in referring to the item of £1,000 for Mr. Speaker's outfit. A division had been taken on the third item of the Vote, and the £1,000 to which the hon. Gentleman referred was the second item. As a division had been taken on the item for "Special Packets for the conveyance of Distinguished Persons," the hon. Gentleman was not in order in the remarks he was now making.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he had not much to say upon the point. If he could not comment upon the item, he should move, without reference to any particular item, to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,000. The Committee would understand his object in moving such a reduction.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £7,409, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray tie Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the ruling of the Chairman, as he understood it, was that the Committee could not divide against the item of £1,000 for the Speaker's outfit. The Question put from the Chair was that a sum of £8,409 be granted to Her Majesty to defray certain charges. Surely, therefore, there was nothing to prevent hon. Members from referring to a particular £1,000 in that amount. He did not want to deprive Mr. Peel of his equipage money—the right hon. Gentleman could have £500,000 for aught he (Mr. Healy) cared—but this was a Vote for £8,409 for Civil Contingencies; and were the Committee to be told that because an hon. Gentleman chose to challenge a succeeding Vote, they were to be debarred from debating, for instance, the item for—
Fees paid on the Installation of His Royal Highness Prince George Frederick Ernest Albert of Wales as Knight of the Garter?
THE CHAIRMANsaid, his ruling was quite plain. It would be quite competent for the hon. Member for Sligo to move to reduce the Vote, but not to reduce it with particular reference to the item of £1,000 for the Speaker's equipage money. Inasmuch as a succeeding item had been disposed of, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) was in error in supposing the Committee could discuss the Vote for the installation fees of His Royal Highness Prince George Frederick Ernest Albert of Wales as Knight of the Garter, or the item for the Speaker's equipage money.
§ MR. HEALYunderstood that the Question the Chairman put on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was that the item of £360 for "Special Packets for the conveyance of Distin- 1352 guished Persons" be omitted. Because it was decided that the item should stand part of the Vote, was he (Mr. Healy) excluded from going into other items?
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Gentleman cannot discuss an item preceding the one which has been disposed of. He is quite within his right to debate and take a division upon any subsequent item.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked if a division, taken upon the proposal to reduce the Vote by £1,000, would necessarily apply to Mr. Speaker's outfit?
THE CHAIRMANI have stated it could not apply to that item. That item cannot now be debated. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) has proposed to reduce the whole Vote by £1,000, and that he is perfectly competent to do.
§ MR. GRAYasked if a division taken on the Motion to reduce the whole sum by £1,000 would preclude discussion on any particular item?
THE CHAIRMANThe only items that are precluded from discussion up to the present moment are three, because a division has been taken on the third. They are the installation fees of His Royal Highness, the Speaker's equipage money, and the item for special packets.
§ MR. GRAYfollowed the remarks of the Chairman; but what he wanted to know was, whether a division on the Motion to reduce the whole Vote by £1,000 would preclude discussion on any of the items?
THE CHAIRMANNo. None of the items subsequent to that of £360 for special packets will be precluded from discussion.
§ MR. CALLANIf the Motion to reduce the Vote by £1,000 is carried, to what item will that reduction be applied?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)That would be in the discretion of the Government, and we shall resist the Motion on that ground. Of course, it would be quite competent for the Committee to reduce the Vote.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he hoped that now they had got the ruling of the Chair they would conform to it strictly. The items upon which he proposed to make some observations were those with re- 1353 gard to Mr. Shaen Carter, the gratuity to the Commissioner of Valuation for services rendered to the Irish Government, and the compassionate grant to Mrs. Eliza Colgan. He quite agreed that it was necessary to put down the sum of £1,147 18s. in respect of Surgeon Wheeler's attendance on Mr. Shaen Carter. Nobody knew that better than the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker). The actual facts of this case, however, were concealed from the Committee. There was a sum of £500 for law expenses which was not included in this Vote. He asked a Question on this subject on the 11th of February last year, and the Government now put down only the exact amount of the verdict given in favour of Mr. Wheeler. The Question he asked last year was—
By whose advice was Surgeon Wheeler's demand against the Government (for attendance on a wounded landlord) resisted; whether it was deposed in evidence that the Government were willing to pay him £700, while his claim was £1,147 18s.; whether the Government employed the Attorney General, 'the Solicitor General, and Mr. Dodd (instructed by Mr. Lane Joynt), to resist his claim before a jury; if he can state what amount was marked on the briefs of the Government lawyers, and how much they obtained as 'refreshers;' whether it is the fact that the Government ultimately admitted in Court the full claim of Surgeon Wheeler, that the case was withdrawn from the jury, and that they had to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs of three opposing Queen's Counsel; and, if he can state what the taxed costs of the Plaintiff amounted to, and how much the suit has cost the Government altogether beyond the £1,147 18s. originally claimed, which they subsequently admitted in Court was due to Surgeon Wheeler."—(3 Hansard, [284] 438–9.)The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland admitted to him that the taxed costs amounted to £208 14s. 7d., and that the suit would cost the Government about £400, in addition to the £1,147 18s.; that was to say, the taxpayers were now called upon to pay in respect of this wounded landlord the sum of £1,147 18s., and in addition to put into the pockets of the Irish lawyers about £400. Surgeon Wheeler earned the money, but who were the people who gave the order that he should earn it; and who was the economical gentleman who raised a false issue, and therefore put all this money into the pockets of the Irish lawyers? It was understood that the late Mr. 1354 Burke gave the order to Mr. Wheeler to put down attendances on Mr. Shaen Carter. Mr. Burke being dead, there was no possibility of ascertaining whether Mr. Shaen Carter's story was right or wrong. The whole matter then came before Mr. Hamilton, Under Secretary, who—with Scotch acumen, was in the habit of making reductions in the salaries of others in order to get advances in his own—thought it was a fine thing to resist Mr. Surgeon Wheeler's claim of £1,100 against the Irish Government. He advised the Irish Government to resist the claim in Court, and they did so, with the result that after two days' litigation they had to consent to a verdict being returned against them, and the country was put to the needless cost of £400 owing to Mr. Hamilton's—Sir Robert Hamilton's, he begged that gentleman's pardon—attempted economy. Now, this was the way government was carried on in Ireland. That distinguished physician Mr. Surgeon Wheeler was, through some means or other—he (Mr. Healy) did not know how—induced to take long journeys from Dublin to Mayo, and his charge for every attendance was 100 guineas, or some such enormous sum. Of course, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin City (Dr. Lyons) would understand that matter very much better than he (Mr. Healy) did. Well, Surgeon Wheeler charged the money—he was quite right, if he were invited to attend Mr. Shaen Carter, to charge Government prices. That being so, what was the duty of the Government? They knew that Mr. Surgeon Wheeler attended Mr. Shaen Carter; but Sir Robert Hamilton, with his new-found economy, came into Dublin Castle fresh as paint, and upon his advice they said—"Oh, we will dispute your bill." Having disputed the bill, and having come to the point of the bayonet—so to speak—and having got Mr. Surgeon Wheeler into Court, and compelled him to prove by experts what he had a right to charge, they knuckled down and said—"We shall have to pay." The present Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) was the only person who could be congratulated on this Vote, because he was Counsel for Mr. Surgeon Wheeler and had the satisfaction of beating the Government. Now, however, he bad the satisfaction of defending the Government. The 1355 hon. and learned Gentleman's position was certainly one of extraordinary novelty. In Queen Street the hon. and learned Gentleman was found denouncing the conduct of the Government for refusing Mr. Surgeon Wheeler's paltry fee of £1,147 18s.; but now the Committee would have the luxury of hearing the learned Solicitor General on the part of the Government say the thing was all right from first to last, and nobody deserved his money better than Mr. Surgeon Wheeler. The litigation must have been very satisfactory from the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view, for it unquestionably put a very large sum in his own pocket. The next item to which he (Mr. Healy) desired to direct the attention of the Committee was that of £250 paid as the compassionate grant to Mrs. Eliza Colgan, in consideration of the loss caused by the misconduct of an Irish Crown Solicitor. The only complaint he had to make about the item was that it was too small. This unfortunate woman was the widow of a man who was sentenced to penal servitude for life. The convict died, and the Crown Solicitor, Mr. Meara, collared all Mrs. Colgan's effects; and he passed on his office by some extraordinary jugglery, which was only known in Dublin Castle, to Mr. Gerrard, who at present held the position of Crown Solicitor. This woman had been trying to get justice against Mr. Meara for the last 11 years; she had been wearing out the flags of Dublin Castle trying to get some satisfaction from the Irish Government, and at last she got a Question put in this House respecting her case, and the next thing that was heard was that she was to get £250. He supposed that if she got her rights she would receive at least £1,250. This poor wretched woman, who had for years been making pilgrimages to that shrine of piety—Dublin Castle—could not get 1 d. until her case was taken up by a Member of the House of Commons, and then she was granted the paltry sum of £250. Either the woman was entitled to get her payment in full, or she was not entitled, to 1d. When he (Mr. Healy) put a Question to the then Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan), the right hon. Gentleman said he had great sympathy with Mrs. Eliza Colgan, but he could do nothing for her. Now, however, the sym- 1356 pathy of the Government had led them to propose a grant to her of £250. Why had she only to receive £250? She was swindled by a Crown Solicitor who trafficked his office, and got a full money payment for it from Mr. Gerrard. Why should not Mr. Gerrard pay Mrs. Colgan's claim in full? He took the offer for better or for worse; he took the office with all its rights, wrongs, and responsibilities; and therefore he should be compelled to pay the sum that his predecessor, Mr. Meara, swindled Mrs. Colgan out of. Mrs. Colgan was a poor woman of 60 years of age. She had. no means under Heaven of going to law, and for 10 years she was endeavouring to obtain justice, but failed to do so until the Government were awoke up by a Question put in that House. And now they put her off with a paltry sum of £250. The item required some explanation. Perhaps the Government would tell the Committee why Mrs. Eliza Colgan was kept out of her money for 10 or 11 years—the interest on which by this time would have come to £250—and why they should not compel Mr. Gerrard to make up the defalcations of his predecessor? Now, in this Vote there was a sum of £500 set down as a gratuity to the Commissioner of Valuation for services rendered to the Irish Government. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that the information given in respect of these Votes was extremely scanty. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) would accept a piece of advice from him, it would be this—that the Government should give as much information as they could on paper, because if they did so much debate would be saved in the House. Would any set of hon. Members in the House object to the four or five lines of type, or the few pages more that would be necessary to add to the Votes if full information were given? Look at the time they would save. In his opinion they would save hours every night if a little précis of the reasons for the Vote were given. Under the present system the Committee had to rely upon the Secretary to the Treasury giving all necessary information. He (Mr. Healy) had been surprised at the manner in which Secretaries to the Treasury got up their work, especially the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard(Mr. 1357 Courtney). That hon. Gentleman was always ready at a moment's notice to give information, and he (Mr. Healy) thought he would he worthily followed in this respect by his distinguished Successor (Mr. Hibbert). Considerable time would have been saved by an explanation appearing upon the foot of the Vote itself as to the gratuity of £500 to the Commissioner of Valuation. He (Mr. Healy) supposed the gratuity was made for services rendered in connection with the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill; but he should be glad to receive definite information on the subject. Then, again, £99 7s. 6d. was charged on the Vote for—Payment on account of the collection of compensation under the provisions of the Crimes Act (Ireland), 1882.Was this in Dublin? [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Walker) nodded assent.] Very well. He would like to know why that £99 7s. 6d. should not come out of the amount paid to Mr. Field? He would like English Members, especially economical gentlemen like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), to remember that when they were voting for blood-money under the Prevention of Crime Act they did not think that such sums as £99 7s. 6d. would be charged on the general taxpayers of the United Kingdom. According to the theory of the Prevention of Crime Act the expenses of collecting the compensation given to Mr. Field should be borne by the citizens of Dublin. If the authorities asked him (Mr. Healy), as a citizen of Dublin, for any part of the money, they would certainly have to sell out his goods and chattels. Indeed, nothing would give him greater satisfaction than to see a sheriff come up to his door to collect 3s. 9d., which he presumed would be required from him personally. The attempt would certainly be worth the money. He invited the Government to endeavour to collect the tax from him. All he could say was that if the Dublin people would take the same course that he would do under the circumstances they would knock a great deal more fun out of the Prevention of Crime Act than they at present got out of it. Why was this £99 7s. 6d. to fall upon the general taxpayers of the country? Why should not the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), in the in- 1358 terests of his constituents, resist the attempt to put blood-money, which ought to fall on the iniquitous City of Dublin, on the taxpayers of the country who by their rule in Ireland simply brought about the crime they sought to repress? In his opinion, the £99 7s. 6d. ought to be deducted from the £3,000 which was paid to Mr. Field. He noticed that £452 3s. 6d. was set down for the "purchase of the reliquary of St. Lachtin, to be deposited in the Royal Irish Academy." He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) on having asked for that amount. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had acted throughout the matter handsomely, and the arrangement which had been made had been one which had given the utmost satisfaction throughout Ireland. He (Mr. Healy) hoped the practice which the right hon. Gentleman had to some extent inaugurated—namely, of collecting Art treasures in Dublin, would be continued in the future. These were the remarks he had to make upon this Vote. He would like to have some explanation as to why the Government did not set at the foot of the Vote the reason of the gratuity to the Commissioner of Valuation; and why the £99 7s. 6d. for the collection of compensation under the Prevention of Crime Act was not paid out of the money granted to Mr. Field?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IERLAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he could not resist the temptation to enter into a little explanation of the payment to Mr. Surgeon Wheeler. It appeared that Mr. Shaen Carter was in March, 1882, fired at and wounded severely. His life was in danger. He was then at Belmullett, some 40 miles from the nearest railway, and by his desire the Resident Magistrate in the district telegraphed to the late Mr. Burke, who was then Under Secretary, suggesting that Dr. Wheeler—one of the most eminent surgeons in Ireland—should be sent out to attend him. Accordingly, Surgeon Wheeler waited upon Mr. Burke. As they all knew, Mr. Burke was afterwards assassinated, and he was not alive to give his account of the transaction when the matter came to a conflict between Mr. Surgeon Wheeler and the Irish Government. But Mr. Burke left a memorandum behind him, 1359 which stated that Surgeon Wheeler was to be paid by the Government if Mr. Shaen Carter was not able to pay him. As a matter of fact, Mr. Shaen Carter's rents had been so cut down by the Land Commissions that he was now in comparative poverty. Mr. Surgeon Wheeler paid Mr. Shaen Carter several visits; and as he (the Solicitor General for Ireland') had already stated, Mr. Shaen Carter was 40 miles from the nearest railway, Surgeon Wheeler claimed his proper amount. ["How many visits did he pay?"] When Mr. Shaen Carter was removed to Dublin, Mr. Surgeon Wheeler paid him some visits in that City. He paid him in all seven visits at Belmullett; and therefore it could be easily calculated how the amount charged was arrived at—Mr. Surgeon Wheeler having sent in a claim for £1,147. The Government finding the memorandum Mr. Burke left behind, which they were perfectly justified in assuming showed the terms on which Mr. Surgeon Wheeler was engaged, offered that gentleman a reduced sum of between £700 or £800, which they considered sufficient compensation for his visits. When the case came to be tried, Mr. Surgeon Wheeler refused the offer of the Government, and said that from several conversations he had had with Mr. Burke he imagined he was to be paid by the Government, quite irrespective of Mr. Shaen Carter. Mr. Burke being dead, there was no means of disproving that, and accordingly the Government must either concede the demand, or take the alternative of repudiating the agency of their own employés. He felt bound to disabuse the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) on one point. The hon. and learned Gentleman had gone out of his way to make some observations about Sir Robert Hamilton. Now, Sir Robert Hamilton had nothing at all to do with the case. The person named Hamilton who was mentioned in the course of the proceedings was not Sir Robert Hamilton at all, but a gentleman named Thomas Hamilton, who was a Resident Magistrate, and who was acting as Secretary to Mr. Burke, and who, it appeared, was present at one or two of the visits which Mr. Surgeon Wheeler paid to Mr. Burke. Mr. Thomas Hamilton, when appealed to, was not in a 1360 position to contradict what Mr. Surgeon Wheeler alleged took place between himself and Mr. Burke, and therefore Mr. Hamilton could throw no light on the matter. In his (the Solicitor General for Ireland's) opinion, the Government, under such circumstances, very properly conceded the demand made by Surgeon Wheeler. With regard to the case of Mrs. Eliza Colgan, he did not understand that the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had found any fault with the Government beyond the charge that the sum which had been paid to her was not large enough. The fact was, that a man named Matthew Colgan, as far back as 1853, was sentenced to death, but had the sentence commuted to penal servitude for life. The husband was possessed of certain property, which, by his conviction, became confiscated to the Crown, the wife having no right to it. The Authorities, however, agreed to settle it on the woman, and interest was paid to her on £500 until 1868. In that year she took a promissory note for the amount from Mr. Jeremiah Meara, the Crown Solicitor for Queen's County. This person subsequently became embarrassed, and left the country without settling with Mrs. Colgan. The circumstances were represented to the Irish Government, and as Meara had acted as their agent, it was decided to consider the case. The result of that consideration had been the payment to Mrs. Colgan of the sum named in the Estimate. He was acquainted with Mr. Gerrard, and could assure the Committee that he was a thoroughly trustworthy man. This gentleman had succeeded Mr. Meara as Crown Solicitor for Queen's County. [An hon. MEMBER: How?] He could not saw how. The Conservatives were then in power, and they were responsible for the appointment. But it could not be contended that Crown Solicitors were responsible for the acts of their predecessors. If such were the case, it would be very unfair to the incoming officials, and it might be found difficult to get gentlemen to take upon themselves the responsibility.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, the hon. and learned Gentlemen the Solicitor General for Ireland had explained all the items except that in regard to which Mr. Ball Greene had been mentioned. He wished to explain to the hon. and learned Mem- 1361 ber for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and the other hon. Gentlemen who had referred to the matter, that that had nothing whatever to do with the Boundary Commission. The item had reference to services performed in 1884, long before the Boundary Commission was ever thought of. The services were connected with several important Bills, Mr. Ball Greene having given important information and assistance to the Government. The first measure in regard to which this assistance had been rendered was the Arrears Act of 1883; then assistance was given in connection with the Land Act and the Franchise Act. Those were the principal measures in respect of which the £500 was paid. He did not understand that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) who had brought the subject forward objected to the payment. He presumed the hon. Member only wished for an explanation as to how it was that such a sum was paid to the recipient of so large a salary. The hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) said the Government should give more information in the Estimates, and he (Mr. Hibbert) quite agreed that it would save a great amount of trouble if that course were adopted. On the other hand, they must remember that if the Government gave too much information, it might lead to a vast amount of discussion and a great waste of time. On the whole he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member that it was the best course to take Parliament into their confidence as much as possible.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he did not object to a payment being made to Mr. Ball Greene for additional services rendered; but he held that £500 was an exorbitant sum for the services rendered.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he rose for the purpose of expressing his regret at having, a short time ago, mentioned the name of Sir Robert Hamilton by mistake. The name had misled him, and he would suggest that something should be done to enable hon. Members to distinguish with ease amongst individuals of the same name. He did not agree with the explanations which had been given. Evidently someone of the name of Hamilton was to blame, and the statements made on behalf of the Government did not carry conviction to his (Mr. Healy's) mind. The fact was admitted 1362 that this item for law costs had been incurred by contesting a claim which was now allowed to be fair and just. All the facts in connection with the case of Mr. Shaen Carter—all the facts concerning Dr. Wheeler's attendance upon him—ought to have been known to Mr. Hamilton. The Solicitor General for Ireland shook his head. Was he (Mr. Healy) to be told that Mr. Hamilton was not made acquainted beforehand with all the information that was put before the jury? Was he to be told that the case was put before a jury without Mr. Hamilton knowing its details? No doubt, every fact which was put before the jury had been put before the Irish Government; therefore he thought Mr. Hamilton ought to be made to pay the law expenses. Either Surgeon Wheeler told a story to the jury which he did not tell to Mr. Hamilton, or Mr. Hamilton was responsible for misleading the Government and causing them to lose this £500. As to the case of Mrs. Eliza Colgan, the Solicitor General for Ireland had not yet seen his (Mr. Healy's) point as to this woman. It was this. The woman's husband was convicted 32 years ago. The state of the law was such at that time that, owing to the attempt of the man to poison his unfortunate wife, they were able to turn her into the poorhouse, and then seize upon the property which belonged to the husband. They now said that it was simply as an act of grace that they did not confiscate the husband's property in this way. But they appointed a trustee—this man Meara—and he absconded with the money. How they had allowed this man to make an arrangement with his successor and then to run out of the country, was still unexplained. The Solicitor General for Ireland had touched very lightly upon this man Gerrard having trafficked with Meara for the appointment of Crown Solicitor in Queen's County; but, as a matter of fact, he had taken the appointment subject to any charges there might be on Mr Meara's estate. What were Meara's liabilities which could not be disputed or denied? Would the Government lay that information on the Table? If they did not promise to give it, he (Mr. Healy) would move for it, and then they might be able to ascertain whether or not the present Crown Solicitor for Queen's County was responsible or not. If there was not 1363 something shady in the business, why was not all this information forthcoming? It was a monstrous thing to say that as this unfortunate woman had been practically kept out of her money for 32 years, and had been swindled by Mr. Meara, an agent of the Government, the gentleman who succeeded Meara as the agent for the Government was not liable to make good the default of his predecessor in office. The woman had been deprived of her property for 17 years—since 1868. The woman's property was surely worth more than £500. What, then, had become of the balance? Where were the papers explaining the matter? Was it not a fact that Mr. Meara had never paid the woman anything? Was there not a question about a life assurance? Would the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant say whether or not Mr. Gerrard had ever touched any of the money Meara admitted himself indebted to the woman? Ought a Crown Solicitor to be allowed to leave the country without the Government being informed of it? Was it not as a trust that Meara had taken the money in hand, and, if it were so, was it not a trust that must descend to successive Crown Solicitors until properly discharged? The Solicitor General for Ireland had ridden very lightly over this subject, declaring that if one Crown Solicitor were to be held liable for the acts and deficiencies of his predecessor, there would be a pretty to do. Well, there might be in the case of such men as George Bolton; but that person, in his official capacity, had never had anything to do with a trust. He was responsible for defalcations as a swindler. But whose duty was it to induct Mr. Gerrard into Meara's office? Were they not bound to act in matters of this kind as auditors? Were they not bound to know that a trust involving a sum of £500 attached to Meara's office, and were they not bound to make Mr. Gerrard acquainted with the fact? How did Mr. Gerrard get the trust without having any assets? Were they to be told that Mr. Gerrard took over the office without having any accounts given to him? No doubt, Mr. Meara held the money as a trust, as it was not in his private name only, but in his name as Crown Solicitor, and the trust should, properly, attach to every Crown Solicitor who took office in Queen's County until it was discharged.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, that perhaps he might be allowed to refer to one or two of the circumstances under discussion, as they had happened whilst he was Secretary to the Treasury, and, although he had not refreshed his memory with regard to them, he thought he was competent to deal with them. With regard to the case of Surgeon Wheeler, the facts were these. Surgeon Wheeler alleged that he had received authority from the Irish Government to go down and attend to this gentleman, Mr. Shaen Carter. It was not customary to put the brief of the plaintiff's evidence into the hands of the defendant before the trial, so that the Government were not cognizant of all the details of Surgeon Wheeler's contention. They had the evidence of Mr. Hamilton, who was a sort of Assistant Secretary to Mr. Burke, and who possessed a memorandum in Mr. Burke's handwriting to the effect that the Irish Government were not responsible; and on this ground, and also because the claim was excessive, it was resisted. The opposition to the claim came—he might incidentally say—from the Treasury in London, so that the blame should not be put upon Sir Robert Hamilton, who had been confused with Mr. Hamilton by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy). After the plaintiff had made his case, it became necessary to ascertain how Mr. Hamilton could meet the evidence of Surgeon Wheeler, and it appeared that he had no recollection of the circumstances narrated by that gentleman, but could not take upon himself to go into the box to deny them. There was then no other course for the Government to pursue but to give way. They resisted no longer, and a verdict was given for the plaintiff.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid he thought the Irish Government were not very well pleased with the result, but it was not easy to do anything. Mr. Hamilton was not in a position to deny the conversation which was spoken to by Surgeon Wheeler, although, at the same time, he could not remember it. It was an unfortunate matter altogether. Surgeon Wheeler had been called upon in great haste, Mr. Shaen Carter being on the point of death. Surgeon Wheeler had the carefulness to make a note of 1365 the transaction when it occurred, but Mr. Hamilton had not had that forethought. Mr. Hamilton's account of the conversation with Surgeon Wheeler was not recorded by the Government at the time; Mr. Hamilton's memory failed him, and the Government had to submit to an adverse verdict; but it would not have been right, under the circumstances, to have visited Mr. Hamilton with a severe censure for a mere act of failure of memory. As to the case of Mrs. Eliza Colgan, the woman's husband was convicted of attempted murder, and his property was necessarily forfeited to the Crown. The Crown waived the forfeiture however, and the property was put into the hands of the Crown Solicitor on behalf of Mrs. Colgan—not put into his hands officially, but handed over to him as to a trustee. The trustee kept it in his hands, and paid Mrs. Colgan interest on the money. He paid interest at the rate of 6 per cent, which was itself sufficient to show that he did not retain the money in his official capacity. Well, the Crown Solicitor absconded, and his affairs had to be wound up, and when this settlement was brought about Mrs. Colgan received her share of the assets as a creditor, and signed a deed entirely releasing the estate of the debtor from her claim. The position the woman took up towards Mr. Meara showed that she had trusted him in his private capacity. She was a foolish woman with no great aptitude for business, or she would never have done such a thing. The fact of her having received a note of hand was not brought to the notice of the Government until last year. Under all the circumstances of the case, the Government thought they would be acting fairly towards the woman by paying her over the amount stated in the Vote.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said that money was left in the hands of the Crown Solicitor by this foolish woman, and he also understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government gave the £500 to Mr. Meara in trust for her. Was that not so? [Mr. COURTNEY: It was left with him.] Then it was the Government that trusted this man, and not the woman. The money had been originally forfeited by Mrs. Colgan's husband; but the Crown considered the case to be one in which the poor woman should not be deprived of 1366 the money, therefore they put it into the hands of an agent, who embezzled it. The least the Government could have done, under the circumstances, would have been to have come forward and given the poor woman something like the sum of which she had been robbed. He should like to have some information upon this point. With regard to the case of Surgeon Wheeler, that gentleman was no doubt entitled to receive a sum of money. There could be no question about that; but he should like to ask the Government why it was that they sent down an eminent surgeon of this kind, at an expense of £1,147, to attend upon a landlord who happened to have been shot at, when if it had happened to have been a peasant who was injured in this way they would have left him to be attended to by the dispensary doctor? The fact of the wounded person being a landlord was no reason why he should receive advice of a more expensive and eminent character than a poor man would have received under similar circumstances.
§ MR. LEAMYsaid, they were told that Mr. Shaen Carter was lying at the time somewhere in the neighbourhood of Belmullett; but there was a poorhouse there, with a medical man in charge of it—a man who for a salary of £100 a-year had to attend upon thousands of patients and to travel, perhaps, hundreds and hundreds of miles in the course of the year. Why was not that official appealed to? It appeared to him (Mr. Leamy) that this matter also required some explanation. He should like to know who was responsible? He did not suppose that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, unfortunately, the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was not in Office at the time. Let him suppose, however, that instead of Mr. Shaen Carter a poor herd of his or a bailiff had been shot at and wounded, would the Government have thought it right to send down Surgeon Wheeler to attend him? No, they would not have taken any such course; and it certainly appeared to him that in acting as they had done in the case of Mr. Shaen Carter, they had indulged in a most extraordinary waste of money. Hon. Members knew that under the Prevention of Crime Act a landlord's life was valued at a much higher figure than a bailiff's, 1367 and it appeared to him to be a great mistake to administer legislative enactments in this way. It had a tendency to induce ignorant men to believe that a landlord's life was more valuable than a peasant's; but in the sight of God and man the life of the poorest peasant was as valuable as that of Mr. Shaen Carter. To refer again to the case of Mrs. Colgan, the Government had agreed to grant her £250. It was no use for the Irish Members to ask that the grant should be increased, he knew, and it was not in their power to move an increase; but he would ask why had the Government allowed 16 or 17 years to elapse before they gave this money to the woman? Did they not think that the woman having been in poverty for so long deserved a larger sum? £500 had been handed over in trust for her to an agent of the Government, and the Government should be responsible for his default. They knew that their agent had betrayed the trust they had imposed upon him, and the least they might do, he thought, would be to make up the original amount. God knew, they spent money enough on wars, and in murdering people who never did them any wrong. They could easily spare a few pounds for this poor woman, whose money had been embezzled by their agent, and who had never wronged them in any way.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, the woman had now been done out of her money for a considerable period, and he would like to make an earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject. Here was a poor woman whose life had been attempted by her husband. She escaped the poison, and the Government spoke of their not forfeiting the husband's property as an act of grace. They allowed her the £500—her own property. He felt bound to appeal to the Government to consider the case of this poor old wretched woman now far advanced in years. Was it at all a fair thing, seeing the way in which she had lost her money, to keep her out of the small balance? He hoped it would be borne in mind that since the year 1868 she had been deprived of the interest she would have been entitled to upon it, and that, in itself, amounted to a considerable sum. He therefore appealed to the Government to wipe out the matter altogether, and hand over to this poor woman the 1368 remainder of the sum to which she was fairly entitled.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)I know nothing whatever of this case; but I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to send me over the full particulars, and I will see what will be proper to do in the matter.
MR. O'BRIENthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the offer he had made, and would express a wish that the spirit manifested by the right hon. Gentleman might be extended, to the whole of the Treasury Bench. He was afraid that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had given avery inadequate excuse for sending a special Dublin surgeon, at avery high expense, to the extreme end of the County Mayo. The hon. and learned Gentleman told them that Mr. Shaen Carter was poor; but it would appear that he had obtained compensation under the Prevention of Crime Act for the injury he had sustained, and the least that could be expected from him was that he would give some contribution towards his doctor's bill. Surely, the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that it was quite possible to obtain medical assistance at Belmullett, and so far there had been no explanation given of any difficulty in Mr. Shaen Carter's case which required special surgical treatment, and which no local doctor could have dealt with. Why should it have been necessary to procure the assistance of a fashionable doctor from Dublin, with a fee of £100 a visit, and his travelling expenses for many miles? Unfortunately, many other persons were required to undergo serious surgical operations without any expense to Her Majesty's Government. As a matter of fact, the chance of Mr. Shaen Carter's recovery must have been somewhat diminished rather than increased by having to wait for surgical attendance until this gentleman could be brought down from Dublin to a place 40 miles from the nearest railway station. Even had it been necessary to obtain the services of a Dublin doctor, it must have been possible to have obtained one at a far less expense. He was afraid that the officials in Ireland were used to such liberal pickings themselves that they thought very little of a charge of £100 more or less, here or there, when it had to come 1369 out of the public money. It was perfectly evident that for at least £500 of the sum which had been wasted Mr. Hamilton was responsible, and he did not see why that gentleman should not be asked to relieve the country of the burden, and pay it out of his own salary, seeing that this huge bill of costs had arisen out of his bungling. He protested altogether against the principle of sending down doctors to the relief of wounded landlords. The Government had more than once lent their troops to enforce the demands of the landlords, and he thought that was sufficient partizanship to display. Mr. Shaen Carter had been exercising the very stringent rights of a landlord, and, judging from the statement of the Solicitor General for Ireland himself, he must have exercised them in a manner which, to a considerable extent, would account for the feeling entertained towards him in the county of Mayo. At all events, it was not because a man was a landlord, or because he was a bad landlord, that the Government was to pay his doctor's bill for him when he came to any harm. His hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had reminded the House that a poor girl in this very district of Belmullett had a bayonet driven through her breast by a policeman; but, in that case, did the Government send down a Dublin doctor to look after her? No provision whatever was made for her by the Ministry; and if this expenditure in the case of Mr. Shaen Carter was to be provided for by Parliament, every landlord in the country who was attacked by an exasperated people would have a right to the payment of his doctor's bill. There would be an appeal made to the Government by every bailiff and land grabber who happened to come to grief in the pursuit of his calling. From every aspect this payment was indefensible, and he appealed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland to assign some sort of reason why Mr. Shaen Carter had been selected for this anomalous expenditure. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to announce that Mr. Hamilton himself was clearly responsible to the extent at least of £500 of this money, notwithstanding the fact that the only punishment which had been visited upon Mr. Hamilton for his delinquency had been to promote him to the position of a Resident Magis- 1370 trate in the North of Ireland. Certainly, he failed to see why this gentleman should not be made to pay at least £500 from the liberal profits he had made out of the disturbances in Ireland during the last few years.
§ MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that no one could know or be able to answer questions as to what the particular reasons were which induced the late Mr. Burke to send Surgeon Wheeler to attend Mr. Shaen Carter. It must, however, be borne in mind that the circumstance occurred at a time of considerable excitement, and, no doubt, Mr. Burke had reasons which were sufficient to justify him in the course he took. At the same time, it was an extreme course, and there was no likelihood that such a course would be taken again. The Government themselves, by the course they had taken, showed that, in their opinion, it was a very extravagant proceeding. Nevertheless, these liabilities had been incurred, and they had to be met. It was stated by the hon. Member who spoke last that Mr. Hamilton ought to pay the money. Now, Mr. Hamilton was Assistant Secretary to Mr. Burke, and he was present at some of the conversations which occurred between Dr. Wheeler and Mr. Burke. When the trial came on Dr. Wheeler brought forward certain facts in reference to what had taken place. Mr. Hamilton was asked—"How are you going to contradict those statements?" He said at once—"I have no recollection of them; but I am not in a position to go into the witness-box and say that they did not really occur." No doubt, most hon. Members might occasionally find themselves in the same position. They could speak to the best of their recollection, but they were not in a position to swear as to certain facts. That was the whole state of the case. It must be borne in mind that it was not Mr. Hamilton who sent out Dr. Wheeler, but that he was simply acting at that time as the quasi-Assistant Secretary of Mr. Burke. If Mr. Burke had lived, he would, no doubt, have been able to explain the whole of this unfortunate matter. The only thing the Government could do under the circumstances was to come to the House of Commons for payment of these expenses, and he did not see what other course was open to them. So far as the sending 1371 down of an eminent doctor to a distant part of the country was concerned, that could only be a matter for future consideration in the event of a similar case arising.
§ MR. KENNYsaid, he understood that the circumstances under which the Government sent Surgeon Wheeler down were these—that in the event of Mr. Shaen Carter not being able to afford to pay the bill of Surgeon Wheeler, the Government would then be liable for the debt. He wished to know how it was that the Government ascertained the inability of Mr. Shaen Carter to discharge the debt? He had had his rents reduced, it was true; but he had received compensation, and one item ought to be set against the other. He (Mr. Kenny) must confess that the Government had acted very unwisely in rendering themselves liable for the expenses incurred in sending Surgeon Wheeler down, and he thought they had endeavoured to get out of the difficulty in which they were placed in a very clumsy manner. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to take into consideration the case of Mrs. Colgan. He (Mr. Kenny) understood that the man who had certainly swindled Mrs. Colgan was a man named Jeremiah Meara, who was the Crown Solicitor at the time. Now, he understood that the Crown Solicitor was still a man of the same name—Jeremiah Meara. It was not the same man, he believed, but the one was the son of the other. If that were really so, he should like to know how it was that a son of the swindler came to be appointed to the position which the father, who committed the swindle, originally occupied? If the present Crown Solicitor was the son of the person who swindled Mrs. Colgan, why not ask him to refund the money of which his father, beyond all doubt, had swindled Mrs. Colgan? He simply put this forward as a suggestion. The Law Officers knew that they had some sort of authority over the Crown Solicitor, and they might so use it as to secure from him the payment of the particular damage which his father had done.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), in introducing the subject, had raised a point which had almost been lost sight of in the valuable discussion 1372 which had since occurred. A great deal of the objection of the Irish Members to the Vote of £1,147 for the medical attendance upon Mr. Shaen Carter was founded, not merely upon the large amount of the Vote itself, but upon the contrast the Vote afforded to the action of the Government in reference to other persons. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, with his usual courtesy, that he would look into the case of Eliza Colgan. He was perfectly sure that if many other cases were brought under the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, justice would be done without hesitation. This was not a political matter; but the question was what the people would feel when they were told that £1,147 had been expended in medical costs upon a single landlord who was well able to pay for himself, while not 1d. was given to another unfortunate creature, or her family, who had been subjected to the deepest privations in consequence of her husband having been required to undergo the horrors of penal servitude for two years for a crime of which he was as innocent as any man in that House. That was the main ground of the complaint of the Irish Members against the Government for this excessive payment. He thought the action of the Government in sanctioning the payment of £1,147 for Mr. Shaen Carter, a landlord with a regular income, slightly reduced, no doubt, but still a regular income, and in the receipt of blood-money besides, was highly reprehensible. The idea that the Government should pay a doctor, under these circumstances, the large sum of £1,147, while the wife and children of an innocent convict were kept without 1d. of compensation for a crime he had never committed, was simply monstrous. He thought the contrast in the treatment of the two individuals was most instructive, but, at the same time, it was most scandalous. He found another item in the Votes of £4 11s. 1d. for a gold medal presented to Dr. Dutrieux for services rendered during the cholera epidemic in Egypt. It reminded him of one of the instructive essays of Mr. Herbert Spencer, who pointed out the contrast between the splendid statues erected in prominent parts of the Metropolis to Sir Henry Havelock, and similar persons, for military services, and that which was given 1373 to a national and universal benefactor like Sir William Jenner in an unfrequented part of the Metropolis sacred to nurserymaids and their military admirers. The sum of £4 11s. 1d. was presented in the shape of a medal to an eminent man who had rendered great services during the cholera epidemic in Egypt, while the same Vote contained an item of £1,174 for a Dublin doctor who had been called in to attend an Irish landlord with a few slugs in his leg. And this was not all. The same Vote contained an item for £548 for fees in connection with the exhibition of banners, helmets, and swords upon the installation of His Royal Highness Prince George Frederick Ernest Albert of Wales, and £1,000 for an equipage allowance to Mr. Speaker. What a contrast that afforded to the treatment of Brian Kilmartin, who had been kept for two years in penal servitude under the terrible imputation of attempted assassination. He sincerely hoped that some sort of explanation would be given of these anomalous circumstances.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he desired to call attention to an item included in the Vote of £71 12s. 11d. for repayment in respect of forfeited Post Office Savings Banks' deposits. Some years ago, he had called the attention of the then Postmaster General to the system of forfeiting Post Office deposits when they exceeded the legal amount. It had sometimes occurred that a man, under a mistaken notion that he could deposit his money more safely in the Post Office Savings Bank, opened an account in two offices. The maximum sum a man could deposit was, at that time, £200; but he thought it had now been increased to £250; and sometimes a man, without knowing that he was doing anything illegal or wrong—or even supposing he was doing wrong—without being acquainted with the penalty, opened two accounts in two separate Post Offices. In such a case, if the depositor died, and it was discovered that his accounts exceeded the maximum, every single deposit he had made was forfeited, and the family of the depositor were deprived of the savings of a lifetime. It appeared that in this particular case it was intended to refund to some person a sum of £71 12s. 11d. He wanted to know if that indicated an intention on the part of the Government not to appropriate 1374 the savings of these poor men again, or tod eprive their families of them? He should be glad to learn what the Vote meant, if it did not mean that.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, this was the case of man named Patrick Kelly, who opened two accounts on the same day, one in his own name, and one in the name of William Kelly. This fact was reported to the Solicitor of the Post Office, and after inquiring into it, he came to the conclusion that the two accounts were opened with a fraudulent intention. It was subsequently discovered that the man acted through ignorance in opening the two accounts, and that he was not aware that he was breaking the law in doing so. The Treasury, after considering the matter, decided upon requiring the forfeit of the smaller account of £12 16s., and upon repaying the amount of £71 12s. 11d. which had been deposited in another office. He thought that a very fair consideration had been shown in allowing the larger amount to be refunded, and only forfeiting the smaller one.
§ MR. GRAYasked, if he was to understand that, where a man in ignorance, and without intending to do wrong, opened an account in two offices, the Crown proposed to take advantage of the man's ignorance and to forfeit his deposit? Was that the statement which the hon. Gentleman made? They had now heard from the hon. Gentleman's own lips that the man had acted in ignorance, and yet they were going to forfeit the £12 he had deposited.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Gray) had misrepresented what he had stated. He had stated that, although the man had acted in ignorance, he had used the name of another person in order to open a second account. The Treasury had fully considered the circumstances, and they felt that, after the course which had been taken, they ought to inflict a certain amount of penalty; and, therefore, they had required the man to forfeit the smaller amount.
§ MR. O'KELLYasked, by what right the Government undertook to appropriate this sum of £12, which did not belong to them?
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, that, as a matter of fact, they had the right of forfeiting both sums.
§ MR. O'KELLYsaid, the hon. Gentleman admitted that the man acted in 1375 ignorance, and did not know there was any penalty. [Mr. HIBBERT: That was so.] The contention of the Government was that the man was entitled to the £71 odd; and he failed to understand on what ground they appropriated the remaining £12 if the man had acted in ignorance, and was not aware that he was doing wrong. If the Government really considered that the transaction ought to be practically wiped out, and that they were bound to return the man the larger sum of £71 odd, upon what ground could they appropriate the other £12? It was equally the man's money. It did not belong to the Government, and in appropriating it they were simply stealing it.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, there still remained a question which he thought the hon. Gentleman would recognize as of some little importance. Oases of great hardship had come under his notice in which the Treasury had put this rule into operation after the death of the depositors, thereby punishing innocent persons. This was a case in which there was undoubtedly a hardship, and the hardship was shown by the facts he had elicited from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert). The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had that day, in replying to a Question addressed to him, said that he would be glad to consider any proposition by which he would be able to make up the probable deficit in the Budget of the year. Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to make it up in this way. If this man had acted with a fraudulent intention, he could understand the Treasury declaring that they would take the entire amount; but when he found that they were ready to refund £71, it plainly showed that, in the belief of the Treasury, there was no fraudulent intention. As a general rule, persons who deposited money in the Post Office Savings Bank were not highly educated or intelligent; and seeing that in this case there was no fraudulent intention, he thought it was as highly culpable on the part of the Government to appropriate £12 of this money as it would have been to have appropriated the £71. The Government acknowledged that they had no moral right to do so, because they were going to refund it, although he granted that, technically, they had a legal right. But they had 1376 the same legal right to the £71 as they had to the £12, and the £12 was as much the man's property as the larger sum, and he had as much right to it. He did not think it was worthy of a great nation to avail themselves of a technical mistake of this kind, even if a man had attempted a little bit of sharp practice, and tried to get ½ per cent more than he would otherwise have been able to procure. He did not think it was worthy of a great nation to appropriate money in this fashion; and he hoped the Government would take the matter into consideration, and not act in this extremely harsh manner in confiscating the property of poor persons who might, through ignorance, or through an attempt to be a little too clever, commit a technical illegality.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, he did not think that the inference drawn by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gray) followed from what his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) had stated. Here was a man who on the same day deposited money in two different names in two different Post Office Savings Banks. It was not disputed that he had done so, and that he was liable to have both sums forfeited. The circumstances having been inquired into, it was considered a sufficient punishment for the offence committed that the man should forfeit the smaller amount deposited.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he had heard the explanation given, and understood the question thoroughly. It was clear that if the Crown believed that this man had had a fraudulent intention, they would not have refunded any of the money, because, in that case, the money would have been very properly forfeited. It was perfectly plain, then, that the Crown knew there was no fraudulent intention, and that the man had acted with a perfectly innocent intention. He would have gained nothing by this double deposit.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, the man admitted that he deposited the two amounts in order that he might get a pecuniary advantage to which he knew he was not legally entitled.
§ MR. GRAYsaid that, even if he could have gained 1 per cent in this way more than he could have obtained from an ordinary bank, he thought it 1377 was an extremely harsh rule that the money should have been forfeited. It was unworthy of a great nation to aggrandize its finances by this rule under which the right hon. Gentleman considered himself justified in taking the money in question. He ventured to say that if this money had come into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in his private capacity, although he might have a legal right, he would feel that he had no moral right to it.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)said, it was not a matter of rule, but a matter of law. They had tried to administer the law, as it seemed to them, fairly in the present case.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the law in this case was like the bye-laws of the Railway Companies, who were constantly making them of their own mere notion, and who appeared to think that, having done so, they were entitled to deprive passengers of their property. If the law was as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, he thought that the sooner it was amended the better. Assuming the worst, the man could gain very little in this transaction; he could gain no more than ½ per cent on £12 or £14; and because he had endeavoured to do that he was by law to be deprived of the principal sum. He agreed with the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) that the justice and equity of the case would be met if the man were deprived of the percentage only.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, that hon. Members who had drawn attention to this case had found fault with the Government for allowing the money to be repaid. The fact was that the Treasury, taking a compassionate view of the matter, allowed the smaller sum only to be forfeited. He pointed out that if they had chosen to do so, the Government might have left the case in the hands of the Post Office to settle, and not laid it before the House at all.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, he did not at all find fault with the money being refunded. He had called attention to the matter in order to express his hope that this precedent would not be followed in other cases, and that cases which he might direct attention to in future would be treated by the Government in a different spirit. His objection was not that in the present case the £12 had been 1378 forfeited, but that there had been any forfeiture at all.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, that in this matter the Government had the banking interest to consider. He would like to know what the hon. Baronet the Member for the London University (Sir John Lubbock) would have said on this question had he been present? He thought that the banking intererst was too strong for the Government. There was a point he desired to raise, and which he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland to consider. It appeared that the taxpayers had paid no less a sum than £1,500 on account of Mr. Shaen Carter's injuries; and he asked whether that sum could be made to repay the whole, or any portion, of the sum of £1,100 paid to Surgeon Wheeler by the Government for attendance upon Mr. Carter?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, it was clear that the £1,500 could in no way be resorted to for the purpose of recouping the Government. Mr. Shaen Carter would not be liable.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 55: Majority 35.—(Div. List, No. 56.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to,
§ (4.) £3,533,650, Vote on Account, Civil s Services and Revenue Departments, viz.:—
| CIVIL SERVICES. | |
| Class I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS. | |
| Great Britain: — | £ |
| Royal Palaces | 6,000 |
| Marlborough House | 1,000 |
| Royal Parks and Pleasure Grounds | 20,000 |
| Houses of Parliament | 10,000 |
| Public Buildings | 30,000 |
| New Admiralty and War Office | 3,000 |
| Furniture of Public Offices | 2,000 |
| Revenue Department Buildings | 50,000 |
| County Court Buildings | 6,000 |
| Metropolitan Police Courts | 1,500 |
| Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland | 2,000 |
| Surveys of the United Kingdom | 50,000 |
| Science and Art Department Buildings | 3,000 |
| British Museum Buildings | 2,000 |
| Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade | 2,500 |
| Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland) | 80,000 |
| Metropolitan Fire Brigrade | 2,500 |
| Disturnpiked and Main Roads (England and Wales) | 20,000 |
| Disturnpiked Roads (Scotland) | 5,000 |