past, and to whose character he could bear testimony. Dr. Eames had filled a responsible and important position for a considerable period, with, so far as he (Dr. Lyons) knew, complete satisfaction to all concerned. He believed Dr. Eames to be absolutely incapable of lending himself to any sort of a sham certificate, such as it was supposed had been furnished in the case of James Ellis French. The case of French was by no means uncommon. It very often happened that a man for a considerable time successfully shammed lunacy, and hon. Members knew, from the correspondence of French which had been published recently, that he was a man capable of exercising a considerable amount of ingenuity. He (Dr. Lyons) believed it was a part of French's case, as indeed it was a common part of such cases, to attempt to starve himself, and thereby diminish his general bodily condition. MR. HEALY: Why, French was not in the gaol at the time of the certificate. DR. LYONS: During part of the time he was in gaol. MR. HEALY: The certificate was given on the 30th April; but French was not arrested until June. DR. LYONS said, he nevertheless believed that French attempted to starve himself, and to reduce his physical condition as to weight, and to produce an appearance of delicacy. It must be admitted that he succeeded in imposing on the physicians who reported on his case. What had happened in French's case was by no means an uncommon occurrence in the history of lunacy. He (Dr. Lyons) personally had been aware of such cases, and it was only by long and repeated examination that he had succeeded in exposing them. What he desired particularly to say was that from his own personal knowledge of Dr. Eames-a knowledge which extended over a very considerable period-Dr. Eames was totally incapable of lending himself to any such misrepresentation as had been alleged by his hon. Friends sitting on the opposite Benches. Dr. Eames had pursued his profession with satisfaction to all with whom he came in contact, and he had certainly discharged the very laborious and onerous duties of his position as head of a great lunatic asylum with great satisfaction to the Governors and Directors. That a man, Dr. Lyons under certain circumstances, should be misled with regard to well-acted lunacy was not to be wondered at, when they considered the extraordinary ingenuity which persons sometimes adopted. [Dr. MR. LEAMY said, that all the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin City (Dr. Lyons) had said was that, in his opinion, Dr. Eames was incapable of lending himself to a sham certificate. Allowing, then, that that was not a sham certificate, it only showed that the man who made it was incompetent to diagnose a case of lunacy. LYONS: He made a mistake.] Possibly, he made a mistake; but if this man had the experience of lunatics which the Committee were told he had, he should be the last man in the land to make a mistake. The hon. Member had led the Committee to suppose that French confused the mind of Dr. Eames, because he was in goal and tried to starve himself. Now, that was not the fact, because, when the certificate was given, French had not been arrested. Now, as to the case of the milkman, he (Mr. Leamy) thought they had a right to a statement of the exact details from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker). In the case of French, Dr. Eames made a wrong certificate, and in the case of the milkman, he, of his own motion, seized the man, whose business brought him to the lunatic asylum every day, threw him into a cell, and put a straight-waistcoat upon him. Now, he (Mr. Leamy) wanted an explanation of these matters. Dr. Eames might have made a mistake in the case of French, and he might have given a certificate, because he was invited to do so; but, in the second case, he acted entirely upon his own responsibility; he outraged the law by seizing the man and imprisoning him, and his ground for doing so was that the man was a dangerous lunatic. He (Mr. Leamy) wanted to know whether the Government intended to keep such a man over an asylum of pauper lunatics; or were the Committee to understand that it did not matter who superintended pauper lunatics, so long as the man happened to be a friend of the Government? Dr. Eames might be an estimable gentleman in private life; but there was one thing very remarkable, and that was, that every Government official who was attacked from these less character. [Mr. HEALY: Until he is found out.] Now, with regard to the second case brought against Dr. Eames -namely, that as to the milkman, he and his hon. Friend demanded an explanation from the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. Benches was a man of the most stain- MR. HEALY said, he had never heard a more extraordinary statement from the Treasury Bench than that of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. Dr. Eames, at all events, gave a certificate that French had softening of the brain, great nervous debility, and infirmity of mind. He need not question then the bona fides of the Government for calling in Dr. Eames; it was not necessary for his purpose to do so. With regard to the milkman, he was surprised that the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland should make the statement he had made. Had he been counsel for the man, he (Mr. Healy) had no doubt he would have made a very different statement to the jury. The hon. and learned Gentleman THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) said, that the examination of French was made for the purpose of ascertaining whether the man was or was not capable of discharging his duties. Very much more was involved than the sanity of the man, and it was well the Committee should know that the opinion of Dr. Eames was attested by two other eminent medical men. MR. HEALY: Also Government offi- said that the man wanted to become a cials. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Now, he had been asked about the case of the milkman who had been detained at the asylum. The man represented himself as a fit patient for the lunatic asylum. The warder took charge of him for a short time, and Dr. Eames allowed him to be put into a cell for a few hours. The man afterwards brought an action against him, and Dr. Eames lodged £5 in Court, which the Jury found was sufficient; and it was under these circumstances that Dr. Eames had been so violently assailed. MR. CALLAN said, that if what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had stated were correct, Dr. Eames had committed no act whatever, but had simply allowed the warder to act. He would be glad to know whether that was a correct statement of the case? Were they to understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland, professing to know all the facts of the case, deliberately stated that Dr. Eames had not imprisoned the man; that it was the warder who did it? He (Mr. Callan) understood that that was the very reverse of the truth. Was it true that the hon. and learned Gentleman had the audacity. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to use that language at all. MR. CALLAN said, he withdrew the word "audacity," and would substitute for it "effrontery." patient, that the warder took him in, and that Dr. Eames allowed him to be kept in a cell a few hours, and that Dr. Eames had paid £5 into Court for damages in the action which was brought against him. The facts of the case were these. The man wanted to tender for a supply of milk to the asylum; he went there, and it would appear that, because he tendered for milk, they treated him as a lunatic. But why had Dr. Eames paid £5 into Court, if he were an innocent man? He need not have paid one farthing. Now, he (Mr. Healy) asked the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he could expect that hon. Members on those Benches could give credit to his statement, which just showed how the Law Officers ap. praised the intelligence of the House of Commons? Any story would do for the House of Commons; they thought anything would go down with those whom they supposed to be blockheads in the House of Commons. He said it was really astonishing that the hon. and learned Gentleman should come forward, at that time of the morning, and tell the Committee such a yarn. Dr. Eames had proved himself to be incompetent both with regard to the certificate in the case of French and the treatment of this milkman. It was absolutely necessary that some person of independent character, like Mr. O'Brien, should have a seat upon the Board of the asylum; and he would advise the ratepayers that, until they had this, they should not pay one penny of the contributions demanded of them for the equipment and salary of men like Dr. | garded, that the Committee of that Eames. MR. T. D. SULLIVAN said, he should like to know whether it was permitted to warders to put people into straight-jackets and cells without instructions from the prison doctors? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland said that the man asked to be taken in as a patient, and that Dr. Eames allowed it to be done. But was that a candid statement? Were those the real facts of the case? It appeared to him that, throughout the course of this discussion, there had been, on the part of the right hon. Gentlemen who had spoken from the Treasury Bench, a distinct want of candour. Was it candid to tell the Committee that the reason why they had not appointed Mr. O'Brien to be one of the Governors, was that the Board of Governors was already sufficiently full? Would it not have been better to say that the Lord Lieutenant did not like to have imposed upon him representatives of this kind? And he put it to the Committee whether they did not fully believe that that was the case? Might they not hope that, at a future time, there would be a little more candour on the Treasury Bench with regard to these statements? Was it not hard for the Committee to listen to, and be expected to swallow, such stories as this? He (Mr. Sullivan) said that Mr. O'Brien was well known to be a reputable citizen, a man of integrity and honour, whose character was not in the slightest degree blackened because he had fallen under the censure of the Lord Lieutenant. On the contrary, his character stood out stronger than it did before he had fallen under the censure. He would not, however, dwell further upon the subject than to observe that the Committee might as well have been treated to a chapter from the Arabian Nights, or Alice in Wonderland, as to such stories as these-that the Lord Lieutenant considered the Board of Governors was already sufficiently full, and that that was the reason he had not appointed Mr. O'Brien. He (Mr. Sullivan) said that it was not for the credit of Parliament that such stories should be bandied about by Gentlemen occupying the high positions of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon. Members on those Benches regarded it as an outrage, and thought that it ought to be so re Mr. Healy House should be asked to listen to stories so bare of plausibility. MR. BIGGAR said, he had heard the greater part of the conversation with regard to this matter, and as the case had been put by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, it seemed that Dr. Eames was either an ass or a scoundrel. He might take his choice. He was either perfectly stupid and ignorant of his profession, or he was a dishonest person. He (Mr. Biggar) did not blame the Government for refusing to examine into the case, under the circumstances. If nothing had been known of the character of Dr. Eames at the time, the Government would have been justified in asking him to examine French; but the difficulty was that, knowing now that he had been proved to be either dishonest or incompetent, they should continue him in his position. That was the ground on which he found fault with the Government, and it was in keeping with the whole course of their conduct in matters of this kind. With regard to the lunatic asylum at Cork, it was known that the persons who were Governors of that asylum did not pay any proportion of the rates. They were landlords, and not occupiers, who did not contribute in proportion to the rates which supported the lunatic asylum; and they knew that the Government, notwithstanding their alleged desire to give local self-government to the people of Ireland, and to extend the franchise amongst them, continued to uphold the present system. thought they gave very little evidence of their desire to extend popular rights and liberties by their conduct in connection with the Cork Lunatic Asylum. Because, instead of appointing to one of the Governorships of that asylum a person who had the confidence of his fellow-citizens, they appointed a man who was most unpopular with them. He would ask the hon. Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) if he would give the Committee the benefit of his opinion with regard to the conduct of Dr. Eames, and whether, under the circumstances, the Government were justified in continuing his salary. He THE CHAIRMAN said, the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) was not in Order in calling on an hon. Member to speak. MR. BIGGAR said, in that case, he would ask the Chairman to call on the hon. Baronet to state whether he was satisfied that French was a person of unsound mind, and whether he thought the case of the unfortunate milkman who was detained was one which could be justified, and whether he thought the Government were justified in screening the conduct of Dr. Eames? Hon. Members on those Benches thought the Government were, on these grounds, to be censured; and he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £200, the amount of Dr. Eames' salary for three months. Motion made, and Question put, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £690, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, in aid of the Local Cost of Maintenance of Pauper Lunatics in Ireland.”—(Mr. Biggar.) The Committee divided:-Ayes 22; much controversy last year over the Navy Votes, and it was found possible to take a Vote on Account also on the same day; but I think everyone who knows what has to be discussed on the Navy Vote will see that it is very doubtful whether we shall be able to do that this year. Therefore, as next week is the last week in which we can take the Army and Navy Votes, it will be absolutely necessary to give the whole of it to Supply. It is therefore a matter of urgent necessity that we should finish the Supplementary Estimates to-night; and I can only say that I am quite ready to sit up all night for the purpose, rather than repeat what we did last year, and finish them on Sunday. MR. SEXTON said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) had omitted one important fact-namely, that last year the Session commenced on the 6th of February. This year, in consequence of the extraordinary call made upon hon. Members at the end of last year, the Session did not begin Noes 61: Majority 39.-(Div. List, until the 19th of February. Where was No. 51.) Original Question put, and agreed to. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."(Mr. Sexton.) THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): It is necessary that I should now explain the position in which we stand as to Supply. The Committee will remember that last year the question as to the time within which certain Votes must be taken was fully discussed and considered. The result was that as on the Thursday corresponding to the present Thursday we had not finished the Supplementary Estimates, we had to take the Supplementary Estimates on the following Saturday, with the scandal of having to sit into Sunday. I think we ought to finish to-night the Supplementary Estimates, over which, I am bound to say, we have been spending an unusual amount of time, instead of taking them on Saturday, and possibly having to repeat the scandal of finishing them on Sunday morning. If the Committee are desirous of knowing why there is a special necessity for that being done, I may say that there is even more necessity for it this year than last. There was not so VOL. CCXCV. [THIRD SERIES.] the necessity that the whole of next week should be given up to the Army and Navy Estimates. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might easily arrange to apportion some of next week to the Supplementary Estimates. And, again, why should to-morrow's Sitting be given up to the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, for which, notwithstanding that there was no need to hurry in the matter, the Government had obtained precedence? He asked the right hon. Gentleman to put down Supply for to-morrow as the first Order of the Day, and retire the Order for Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. He had sat in the House during 10 hours already, and certainly did not wish to sit up all night for the purpose of passing the Supplementary Estimates. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): We cannot assent to the proposal of the hon. Member, for Supply has no privilege except on Mondays and Thursdays. The effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposal would be, that we should not have the same means of going into Supply on the day he names which we have on Mondays and Thursdays. MR. SEXTON asked what would be the effect if hon. Members undertook 2 L to make no Motions on going into | interested, and then expect them to sit up Supply? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I am afraid that is a matter beyond me. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot control or govern the House in that respect; and it is, therefore, quite out of my power to assume that any other days in the week will be devoted to Supply but Mondays and Thursdays. MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR said, the observations of the right hon. Gentleman applied only to the Supplementary Estimates; he had not spoken of a Vote on Account. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I stated that last year we did take the Navy Estimates and the Vote on Account on the same night, because although there was a great deal of discussion on the Army Estimates, on the Navy Estimates there was very little discussion indeed. to a very unreasonable hour discussing Votes upon which they had a great deal to say. It was stated by the Government that the Votes Irish Members wanted to consider would take a long time to discuss; but he would remind the Committee that the Diplomatic Vote had lasted four hours, and that, at the best, the discussion upon it was only of an academic character. The amount of money now involved was £3,500,000; and, in his opinion, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted that sum to-night, he was hardly likely to get it. There was material enough in these Votes to enable the Irish Members to discuss_many points for a considerable time. Even if they sat up all night, they might find themselves unable to dispose of all these subjects; and it might be necessary to sit up for two nights-that was to say, if the Government thought to cram MR. HEALY said, the right hon. these Votes down their throats. Last Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-year the Irish Members, at the request chequer gave as a reason for not taking of the Government, who offered a comthese Votes to-morrow that Motions promise, forewent their discussion; but might be put down on going into Com-months wore on, and they ultimately mittee of Supply. Well, presumably the found that absolutely nothing was given right hon. Gentleman had full control to them in return for the course they over his own Members; and as the only had taken. His experience of wrangles Members of the Tory Party now present of this kind was that they came to no were the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. good, and his advice to the Government Tomlinson), the hon. and learned Member was-"Go to bed early, if you can." for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and the hon. When these wrangles were continued, it Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. was not unfrequently the case that toFowler), neither of whom were likely towards the close Members of the Liberal hunger with any very urgent desire for an opportunity to put down a Motion, and the Irish Members were not likely to put down Motions-taking these facts into consideration, and knowing that Motions could not be put down for tomorrow, unless Notice were given of them now, he hoped the course pointed out would be adopted by the Government. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT said, Motions could be put down.] If that were so, of course it could not be helped. At any rate, it was better to take the chance that Motions on going into Committee of Supply would break down at a reasonable time than to refuse the reasonable request of the Irish Members. It was better to do that than to drop the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill at a reasonable hour to take Diplomatic and other Votes, in which the Irish Members were not particularly Mr. Sexton More Party got disgusted with the business, |