§ First four Resolutions (see pages 1362, 1382, and 1385), agreed to.
§ Fifth Resolution (see page 1400) read a second time.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
§ MR. SEXTONA discussion arose upon this Vote in Committee, and it was arranged that the hon. Baronet the Member for Cambridge University (Sir G. Stokes), who is a Trustee of the Museum, and others should make inquiry upon certain points raised, and that information should be given to the House at this stage. The House is aware that the files of certain newspapers, the property of the British Museum, were transferred from the Museum to the Royal Courts of Justice, and remained there for a considerable part of the year in the custody of the solicitor for the Times under circumstances inconvenient, and, we think, unfair to the other parties in the case. We have asked to whom the subpœna 1576 was addressed, and upon whom was it served, and what documents were specified in the subpœna to be produced in Court. Another important question raised in Committee concerned the conditions of employment of certain gentlemen in the office of the British Museum. We understand that Mr. Birch was one of the gentlemen who accepted employment from the Times; we are informed there was another, and we desire to know his name. We want to know whether these gentlemen are bound to devote their time to the service of the British Museum, or whether they are at liberty to accept engagements from other persons, engagements for which they receive considerable remuneration, engagements which involve large demands upon their time; are they at liberty to accept such engagements, and receive such remuneration without any deduction from their salaries? It must be obvious that in this case these gentlemen, having pledged themselves to a certain view of certain letters, and having undertaken to give evidence, were bound to appear in Court, and to submit themselves to considerable examination, and to very prolonged cross-examination. This would have involved their absence during office hours. We should like the hon. Baronet's view upon such a set of circumstances. There is one other observation I wish to make. The Solicitor General for England stated last night that these gentlemen acted in no partisan spirit; but since yesterday I have had an opportunity of conferring with my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), who informs me that before Mr. Birch received any retainer from the Times' application was made to him on behalf of the hon. Member for Cork, but he declined the proposed engagement, and subsequently accepted that of the Times. That does not look like acting with impartiality. I am obliged to say, and I say it with some regret, that we Irish Members have, in this keen ordeal, this bitter and unmerited trial, which has been forced upon us by our political enemies, experienced from these officials the same spirit of partisanship, hostile to ourselves and our country, which we have had to encounter all through, because of the social forces of the great 1577 conspiracy against us; that spirit of partisanship has been experienced from quarters where, at least, a decent show of impartiality might have been expected.
§ MR. JACKSONPerhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer some of the questions about which I undertook, when the Vote was before the Committee last night, to get some information. I will not go into the matters which the hon. Member has now raised, because I am not prepared with the information that will be necessary to give an answer. I understand the hon. Member to say that an application was made to the British Museum officials for their services on behalf of the hon. Member for Cork. I thought that the hon. Gentleman objected to this work being done at all by the officials of the British Museum. However, I will endeavour to answer the questions which were put to me last night. Perhaps I ought to say in the first place that there has been some misapprehension and unnecessary alarm as to what has taken place with reference to the files of newspapers used at the Commission. This morning a very full and careful inquiry has been made, and from information which has been supplied to me I think I shall be able to show that there has not only not been anything irregular, but that every step which has been taken has been taken on the direct order of the Commission, and I understand it is the duty of everybody to obey such an order. I understand that in the earlier stages of the proceedings subpœnas were served for particular files of newspapers. [Mr. SEXTON: On whom?] On the librarian. [Mr. SEXTON: What is his name?] I will give the name if the hon. Gentleman will let me tell my story. These particular files were taken down, but some inconvenience was felt because sometimes all the information required was not contained in the particular paper which was sent for. Therefore, an order of the Court was made, dated the 1578 6th of November, 1888, and it was in these terms:—
Whereas the Trustees of the British Museum are in possession of certain files of the newspapers called United Ireland, the Freeman's Journal, and such other papers as may be required from time to time, and whereas certain of the said files are now in the Royal Courts of Justice, we, the Commissioners appointed under the above-named Act, do order that the said files be delivered over to the custody of our secretary and his receipt taken for the same, the said files to be returned as soon as we have finished using them.This order was signed by the Commissioners and was addressed to the Trustees of the British Museum, and it bore the signature of the Secretary of the Commission, Mr. Cunynghame. The subpoena was made out in the name of Mr. Graves, the officer charged with the custody of the papers. I was asked whether I would state the name of the second gentleman engaged in connection with the letters. The name of Mr. Birch has already been given, and I understand that the other gentleman was Mr. Ellis. The question was asked whether the photographic apparatus of the Museum has been used. I am told that there is no photographic apparatus in the Museum, therefore, it was not used. I ought to have stated that the order of the Commissioners, dated the 6th of November, was reported to the Trustees by Mr. Bullen on the 8th; and, on the 10th November, the Trustees held a meeting of the standing committee, at which they passed a minute to the effect that they agreed to the delivery of the files. The House will thus see that every step taken was taken simply in obedience to the order of the Commissioners. I understand that when the papers were taken to the Law Courts the intention was to place them in a room—the only room apparently available—at the top of the building; that the papers were never out of the custody of the officer of the Museum; that it was found that the room in question was exceedingly inconvenient for those who wished to consult the papers; that in accordance with an arrangement made Mr. Soames placed at the disposal of the Court a room in which certain people were seen, and that every night when the files were left there the room was not only locked, but also sealed. This arrangement continued up to the 1579 time the files were taken back to the Museum. I am told that the papers were perfectly available for everybody who asked to see them, and that there was not the slightest intention to favour one side or the other.
§ MR. SEXTONWill the hon. Gentleman say what amount was paid to the officials for their services?
§ MR. JACKSONNo, Sir, I cannot; I am not able to do so, because these two gentlemen have taken up a position which I am bound to say they are justified in taking up. They state that the work performed by them was done apart altogether from their official duties; that no part of the work was done during the time which it was their duty to give to the Museum.
§ MR. SEXTONWhat did Mr. Graves get?
§ MR. JACKSONI thought the hon. Gentleman referred to the payment by the Times. Mr. Graves received a guinea a day, and each of his two assistants received 5s. a day. I think I have now given hon. Members the information they desire to have.
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)No doubt the statement of the hon. Gentleman is satisfactory so far as it affects the official action of the clerks; and I am quite willing to believe it was solely due to Mr. Soames and his friends that we were shut out from the papers. But there is one matter on which the statement of the hon. Gentleman is not satisfactory. Last night the hon. Baronet the Member for Cambridge implied that whatever work these officials did was done after official hours. It now appears that there is no photographic apparatus belonging to the British Museum. The almanack shows that on the 1st of October the sun set at half-past five o'clock, and on the 31st of October at half-past four o'clock. It is said these gentlemen did this work after official hours. Now we all know that for photography something like a decent light is required [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER: Electric light.] Photographing Pigott's signature by electric light! I should have thought the intelligence of 1580 the hon. Gentleman was proof against that. But it is not long since objection was taken to introducing the electric light into the Museum, and the electric light is not there.
§ MR. JACKSONI omitted to state that these two gentlemen did the work during the leave they were entitled to take.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThen we have got rid of the official hours argument; I am glad of that. But then comes in the question of the four seasons. I presume these gentlemen usually take their holidays in the summer and not in October and November. The whole thing seems absurd. When men do wrong why do they not own to it? The only leave that Mr. Birch and Mr. Ellis seem to have taken is leave of their senses. It certainly is perfectly gratuitous to suggest that there is no photographic apparatus in the Museum. There ought to be one, and I would advise the addition of a few shillings to the Estimate to be spent in providing one. I was greatly impressed by the statement of the Attorney General that all the tests had been applied to the letters. These disclosures show the entire recklessness with which the whole business has been gone into. I renew my protest against the way in which things have been done. After the famous interview behind the Speaker's chair between the First Lord, Mr. Leycester, our old friend Walter and Mr. Houston, are we to be told that the Times people came to their conclusions unaided by science and aided only by the suggestions of Houston and Pigott? These gentlemen decline to say what fees they had, and I can understand their modesty, but we are brought to this position; we have the assurance of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork that he went first to Mr. Birch—
§ MR. JACKSONI understand that is not so. The application of the hon. Member for Cork to Mr. Birch was subsequent to that of Mr. Soames.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYThen it was a case of first come first served; their word 1581 was previously pledged to Mr. Soames. Possibly so. Let us argue it from that basis. I will follow the stream whichever way it flows. We are told that the application of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork to the scientists was subsequent to that of Mr. Soames. Very well. They had already declared their willingness to perjure themselves to Mr. Soames for a consideration. ["No."] They had pledged their willingness to declare on the four Evangelists that Pigott was a virtuous person. I will take it any way you like. Then we come to the point when they are approached by the accused, and I have always considered, in British jurisprudence, that the person entitled to consideration is the accused; but these gentlemen, having pocketed the money of the Times, declined to consider the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork. It does seem to me a very extraordinary thing that these gentlemen, having bound themselves to Mr. Soames, should declare their unwillingness to a Member of this House to hear what he had to say. As scientists, having no view as between parties, they might have heard what my hon. Friend had to say. But no, they shut their minds to that. They said, "We will not hear you; we will not see you or your signature. We have from Mr. Soames a series of documents and are prepared to swear they bear the signature of C. S. Parnell." These gentlemen might have said, "We have a retainer from Mr. Soames, but we are not in the position of advocates." I can appreciate the position of the Attorney General, and should have nothing to say against it if he were not Attorney General paid by the taxpayers. It is the business of an advocate, speaking generally, to urge what can be said on behalf of the client for whom he is retained, and to put his view of the law, an uncertain science, before the Court. But these gentlemen are not advocates; they are gentlemen who are paid by the country as scientists. Yet when they were approached by the hon. Member for Cork, they said, "We have already taken up the side of the opposition." Now, it does seem to me an invidious thing for people in this position to declare 1582 themselves on one side or the other My hon. Friend had recourse to them in his desperation; not unnaturally he wished to have the best guidance. Driven from post to pillar he made every effort to defend himself against unjust accusations. These scientific gentlemen recklessly took the side of his accusers, and knowing what we now know the very name of expert has become odious.
§ MR. SEXTONI desire a word in. the nature of a personal explanation. The Secretary to the Treasury interposed in the speech of my hon. Friend with the remark that the offer on the part of the hon. Member for Cork to Mr. Birch came after the offer of engagement from the Times. I am informed by my hon. Friend that when the offer was made Mr. Birch made no such representation, and that my hon. Friend is satisfied that the engagement came after and not before his offer.
§ MR. LABOUCHERELooking at this from the taxpayers' point of view it seems to me we ought to hesitate before granting any salaries to these officials. It appears that they are always having leave; they have an exceptional amount of leave; and it appears that they are also very stupid. Before the sittings of the Commission there was the O'Donnell trial, and I presume these experts were consulted in reference to that trial, for the Attorney General declared that he had the best information that could be got in respect to the letters. So I suppose they then did their work on leave. In winter it is almost impossible for the officials of the Museum to examine documents except in office hours, for it is absolutely necessary to do the work by daylight. The Solicitor General has told us that these gentlemen are frequently employed in litigious cases. That being so I am inclined to ask, "When are they not on leave?" It does not seem that they devote much time to the business of the Museum, but in any case they ought not to be paid, 1583 because they are so thoroughly stupid as to be utterly unreliable. They did not examine these letters with the microscope as any sensible expert would. I did, and if these experts had taken the trouble they would have seen a white line down the middle of the writing indicating where the ink did not flow over the pencil tracing. It did not require much acuteness to detect these signs of clumsy forgery, but these experts who are paid large sums of money could not see this. The photographs, we are told, were not taken at the Museum, and it is a somewhat surprising fact that an establishment which has to use photography largely does not possess photographic apparatus, but when photographs are required by the Museum somebody outside has to be employed. These photographs were taken by the person usually employed by the Museum authorities, and under the supervision of Mr. Birch and Mr. Ellis. Now, I do not suppose these men were absolute rogues; I do not say that for a moment, but I can only justify them from that imputation by considering them utter fools. When the copies of the photographs supplied to the defendants came to be examined, they were found to be secondary, not primary photographs. It might fairly be supposed that all the photographs would be supplied from the one negative, but that was not so. Photographs were taken from the first photographs and given to the defendants. Hon. Members will see how this increased the difficulty of discovering traces of forgery, because, of course, the secondary photographs reproduced all the imperfections on the paper of the primary photograph, and when they came to be magnified under the limelight it was exceedingly difficult to establish the forgery. Apart from these evidences of folly, it was a great abuse of the position of these officials that they should have gone over to the side of the Times; they should have reserved themselves for an order from the Court. Of course the Times must have gone to them first, for the Times had the letters and the hon. Member for Cork had not, and when the hon. Member did get them he found that the Times had engaged every expert they could put their hands on. It was an obvious injustice. Messrs. Birch and Ellis should have had a true 1584 sense of their position as public officials; they should have refused to serve the Times, knowing how their opinion might bias the public mind; they should have reserved their skill, such as it was, for the order of the Court. Under the circumstances, I think my hon. Friends have made out a good case, and I move the reduction of the Vote by £500.
§ * MR. SPEAKERI have already put the proposal that the House do agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 107 Noes 48.—(Div. List, No. 316.)