stain from doing their duty to their con- | take the case first of the higher officials. stituents in that House. An English Chairman was paid £1,000 MR. PARNELL asked leave to with-a-year out of the Prisons Vote under disdraw his Motion, as he thought that the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had made a very reasonable arrangement. He thought that the Vote on account of the Irish Constabulary should also be postponed.

Mr. GOURLEY considered that there was a great difference between the Vote for the Scotch Universities and the Irish University Question. Whatever happened, the money must be granted by Parliament for the Scotch Universities, and he thought the Government were not acting rightly in consenting to the request for the postponement of the Vote on Account for them. It was very well known why their Irish Friends were asking for a postponement of this Vote; it was from the opposition of the Scotch Members to the Bill with reference to the Irish University. But the difference between a Bill for the Irish University, and voting money required for Scotch Universities, was very great. The payments on account of the Scotch Universities had been incurred, but the Irish University was yet in embryo; and, therefore, it was unfair to require the postponement of a Vote on Account for the Scotch Universities. He did not think that the Government were acting with a due desire to push forward the Business of the House in consenting to the postponement of the Vote.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.

MR. PARNELL wished to make some observations with reference to the disproportion between the salaries of the prison officials in England and Ireland. His hon. Friends were obliged, by the Forms of the House, to move to reduce the salaries of the English prison officials in order to give effect to their view that Irish prison officials should be paid larger salaries. He did not wish to go at length into this question, because he hoped that satisfactory assurance would be given either that the salaries of the English prison officials would be reduced, or that the salaries of the Irish officials would be raised to the same level. He had in his hand a long list, showing the disproportion in the salaries of the officials in the two countries. To

Mr. O'Donnell

cussion, and another £1,000 a-year as Chairman of the Convict Prisons Board; whereas an Irish Chairman only got £1,200 a-year altogether. If the Irish Chairman could manage to exist on £1,200 a-year, he did not see any reason why the Englishman should not do so; he could not see any reason why the English Chairman should be paid an additional £1,000, whereas the Irish Chairman only obtained an additional £200 from the Prisons Vote. When they came to the seven Inspectors who were maintained in England, they would find that they had £700 a-year each, whereas the three Irish Inspectors only got £500 a-year each. The number of Inspectors in Ireland being less than in England they might assume that they had the same amount of work to do as those in England, and if £500 a-year was sufficient for an Irish Inspector it ought also to be sufficient for an English Inspector. He found, on looking into the Estimates, page 216, that the Governors of English prisons got an average salary in England of £710 a-year-he was speaking of the minimum salary, because they went from £710 to £2,000. On page 278 of the Estimates, he found that in Ireland the Governors of prisons were only paid from £100 to £350 a-year-an enormous disproportion, which he thought required some explanation of the Government. He found that the Deputy Governors in England received an average salary of £200 a-year; whereas the Deputy Governors in Ireland were paid from £60 to £130 a-year. Then the chaplains in England got an average salary of from £100 to £200 a-year, while the chaplains in Ireland were paid from £30 to £75 a-year in the case of Protestant chaplains; the Roman Catholic chaplains, however, in Ireland, were paid salaries averaging from £100 to £200 a-year. The same disproportion was seen in the salaries of the medical officers; and he might say that the same thing was observable in the whole list of officers from the Governors down to the lowest hewer of wood and drawer of water. He considered that if men could exist upon those salaries in Ireland they ought to do the same in England. There was a less number of officers in Ireland, because, probably, there was a less num

ber of prisons. He wished to know appointed; but, on the contrary, no comwhy the English officers received so plaints had been raised by any of them. much higher salaries than those in When they looked to the relative reIreland? And unless a reasonable ex-muneration of the different classes of planation was given, he must move to the community in Ireland they would reduce the Vote. see that the salaries paid to the prison officials bore a very fair relation to that remuneration. He did not for a moment dispute that the remuneration that was given to the same officials in this country was greater. A medical man, however, in one country received very much greater remuneration than a medical man in the other, and the payments amongst all classes were greater in England than in Scotland and Ireland. The salaries paid were in relative proportion to the ordinary remuneration in the country; and, with regard to the amount of work done, they were fair salaries. He was sure that if the population and the number of prisoners in England, as compared with the number of prisoners in Ireland, and also the number of prisons were looked at, and the relative scale of professional remuneration in the different countries was considered, it would be found that the officials in Ireland were fairly and adequately paid.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON quite admitted, that at first sight, without going into figures, it might seem necessary that some explanation should be given with regard to the disproportion between the salaries paid to the English and Irish prison officials. But the Committee should not lose sight of all the circumstances connected with this matter. In the first place, the question was very much, and very properly, influenced by the amount of work that was to be done in the different countries-by the amount of inspection, and the amount of charge which was thrown upon each individual Inspector. One very important element was the number of prisons under the eye of each Inspector, and another was the number of prisoners in each prison. The number of prisoners in England was much in excess of the number in Ireland. In the 72 prisons in England the average number of prisoners was 284, and those prisons were, for the most part, very large ones. In fact, a very much larger proportion of work was required in England, and it would seem that an Inspector had much harder work in England than in Scotland or Ireland. Then, again, the number of prisoners was 20,500 in England, as against 2,300 in Scotland, and 2,940 in Ireland. What was the case with regard to the Irish Inspectors of prisons? The first proposal made for the salaries of the Irish Inspectors of prisons was that they should receive salaries of not less than £400 a-year. That amount was the first recommendation of the Irish Government, and on their asking for an increase of that amount for the three Inspectors, the demand was at once complied with, and they now received from £500 to £600 ayear. That was the only application which had been made with regard to the salaries of those Inspectors, and it was assented to at once, and there was no reason to think that it was not very fair remuneration for the services performed. From all that he had heard, he would venture to say that the salaries that had been paid had not been objected to by the officers who had been

MAJOR NOLAN said, the case was really much worse than had been stated. The Secretary to the Treasury seemed to say that, because there had been no complaint, there was no grievance; but, as a matter of fact, there were many complaints. The simple argument seemed to be that because all trades and professions in Ireland were worse paid in Ireland than they were in England, that, therefore, the servants of the Crown should also be worse paid. That was not a fair way of putting the question. If it was maintained that the Government officials in Ireland did less work than the Government officials in England, that might be a reason for paying less; but no such contention had been stated. Except in the case of the Inspectors, the Secretary to the Treasury made out no such case whatever. The true test was the cost of living, and though that certainly was cheaper at one time in Ireland than in England it was not the case now. With the exception of milk and eggs, he believed all sorts of food were quite as cheap in London as in any Irish town. Bread was probably cheaper, for they had to import a great deal of corn in Ireland, while many of the necessaries and all

the luxuries of life were much cheaper here than there. As a consequence of their smaller pay, the minor Government officials in Ireland had, without doubt, to content themselves with lower positions than their English brethren enjoyed. Amongst the higher officials, he believed, many unnecessary offices existed. The speech of the Secretary to the Treasury did not give them much hope of any improvement, for he said that, as all other classes were accustomed to receive less remuneration in Ireland than England, the rule must hold good with Government officials also. That might be an argument with some little force, if there was a notable difference between the taxation of the two countries; but, as a matter of fact, he believed Ireland was more heavily taxed than England. The Irish were a whiskydrinking people, and spirits were taxed far more heavily than beer, which was what the English people drank; while, on the other hand, the Income Tax and the tobacco duty, for instance, were the same in both countries. Under such circumstances, he certainly thought it was most unfair to treat the Irish officials worse than the English.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON thought his argument had been misrepresented. What he said was that the State, as an employer of labour, in the interests of the taxpayer, ought not to pay more for labour than its proper value, and that value depended upon the general remuneration of the different professions and statuses. Would any hon. Member, for instance, say that the leading medical men and barristers in Dublin made as large incomes as the leading men of those professions in London? For some reason or other there was a larger amount of service to be obtained in Ireland, and the State, therefore, need not pay so much for it as in England. No complaint, also, had been made by these officials. Not one single complaint had reached the Treasury, except that made by hon. Members that night. The argument as to the Inspectors applied also to all other cases. Where there was not the same amount of labour to perform, the salaries ought not to be so high as they were where work was heavier. He ventured to say, in no one case had there been any complaint to the Prison Commissioners.

Major Nolan

MR. CALLAN thought the hon. Gentleman could not have read the evidence before the Commission which inquired into the salaries of Civil servants three years ago.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON remarked that the Prison Commissioners were not appointed then.

MR. CALLAN replied, that the principles laid down then governed the Treasury now, and the objection was a technical and a puerile one. The principle then laid down was that the cost of living should regulate salaries. [Sir HENRY SELWIN IBBETSON dissented.] That was so, notwithstanding the oracular shake of the head of the hon. Baronet. He believed that the cost of living in Ireland was quite as great as it was in England, and if they did pay a little more for their milk in London they got a superior quality. The logical sequence of the argument of the hon. Baronet was that the English officials were superior in every shape and form to the Irish officials.

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY admitted the principle laid down by the hon. Baronet that the State ought not to pay more for its work than the market value; but he complained that a totally erroneous standard of value had been chosen. The officers and warders, on whose behalf complaint was made, were in a totally different position from medical men and barristers. Their position should have been compared with that of merchants, shopkeepers, artizans, and labourers. He would find that those classes earned little, if anything, less than men of the same class earned in England; and, therefore, the enormous difference of salary which had been pointed out certainly was not warranted. The general staff of the prisons, also, had had their duties largely increased by the consolidation of the prisons; but their salaries remained the same. These men had onerous, almost slavish, duties to perform, which made them prisoners very nearly to the same extent as those they had in charge, and they certainly were not properly remunerated for the work they had to do. He knew, in one case, that both the Governor and the doctor, when they undertook increased duties under the new Act, did so on the understanding that they would receive increased remuneration. There was much feeling on this subject in Ireland, and the House

SIR ANDREW LUSK hoped this discussion would now close, and that the Vote would be taken. For his part, he thought the Government ought to be careful how they spent the money of the country. Whenever there was a vacancy for one of these offices there were always 50 applicants, and as long as that was the case what was the good of saying any more about it? He did not want to draw invidious comparisons, or he might say something about Ireland-the police, for instance. The Government had borne a great deal of contention and contradiction, and now he thought it would be reasonable to give them the Vote.

must expect to hear of it until the sala- | Government-which always managed to ries in the two countries were to some secure a great deal of patronage—and extent equalized. not one of the Irish Conservative Members was in the House to speak for them. The Irish Liberal Members were equally to blame; but, notwithstanding the small attendance, he hoped his hon. Friend would not allow the subject to drop, but would bring it forward on every one of the Estimates. The only way in which they could get justice for Ireland was by making it inconvenient for the House to do injustice to Ireland. It appeared that there were 3,000 prisoners in Ireland, some 200 or 300 less in Scotland, and about 20,000 in England. Thus Scotland, with a population only two-thirds that of Ireland, had nearly as many prisoners as Ireland, while the the disproportion was still greater in the case of England. If that were so, what justification was there for the complaints constantly made of the lawlessness and disorder of the Irish people, and what excuse was there for changing their system? The Irish prisons and the Irish lunatic asylums were managed on a totally different system from the English ones; as a result, they had far less crimes and far more cures of lunatics than in England. Under such circumstances, he was justified in asking why this change had been made, and why their whole system had been altered, and why systems of torture which never existed before were now introduced? This system of paying smaller salaries in Ireland than in England was so unjust that if a compact body of Irish Members only made it inconvenient to continue it, the Government would soon discharge their consciences by doing what was right.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY never listened with greater pleasure to the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Lusk) than when he appeared in the character of the heavy father," and advised them all as to what they should and should not do. He did hope, however, that the hon. Baronet would institute some of these invidious comparisons, and would call attention, for instance, to some of the Government Departments in Ireland. This question of the discrepancy in salaries was a most important one, and there could not be a more fallacious argument urged against the contention of himself and his Friends than that of the Secretary to the Treasury. They could, no doubt, get gentlemen to be Prime Minister, or Home Secretary, or even Chief Secretary for Ireland, at half the salaries paid to the present holders of those Offices. The fact was, that the salaries of the smaller officials were intentionally and designedly fixed at a lower rate than they were in England. It was especially the case in regard to lunatic asylums, as he had himself pointed out, and he was very glad that the Irish Members were at last learning to discuss the Votes systematically. For a great deal of the discussion that even-lish economy. He should move to reing the Treasury Bench was responsible. For instance, a very interesting discussion on the incomes of professional men in Dublin and London had been started; but as he did not think that question was germane to the topic now before them he should not deal with it. It was said that these officials did not complain. No wonder; they were Con- SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA hoped his servatives, appointed by a Conservative hon. Friend would not divide. At the

MR. PARNELL would certainly take a Division after the statement they had heard from the hon. Baronet. He did not think it was political economy to take the cheapest labour they could get, nor, until he heard the statement of the hon. Baronet, did he think it was Eng

duce Item D of the Vote by £75,000, which was about the disproportion between the English and Irish salaries.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item for Pay and Allowances of Officers, including Uniform, be reduced by the sum of £75,000."—(Mr. Parnell.)

same time, he must entirely disagree | now very anxious to know what had from the proposal to treat Irish and been done in this matter, and felt confiEnglish officials differently on the score dent that he should receive a satisfacthat they were to regard the scale as tory reply from the Government. dependent on the labour market. The whole question was, whether the work was the same? If it was, it ought to be paid for at the same rate. There was no such thing as a labour market in regard to Public Offices. What would be said if, in the Army, the Irish soldier was paid 18. and his English comrade 1s. Id. a-day? If this discussion were taken to heart by the Government, he had great hopes that good would result from it; but he did not think it should lead to a Division on this occasion.

MAJOR NOLAN wished to point out that officers in the Army and the Navy were not paid any less when they were serving in Ireland. The argument that the Government should only pay what they could get people to do the work for was utterly fallacious. As for any appointment over £40 or £50 a-year, they would always have plenty of applicants. The Government must settle what was a fair rate of pay, and they should make no distinctions.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY said, this Amendment was moved to Item D. As a point of Order, he wished to know whether he could now move a reduction of Item A, on which Vote he wished to bring forward the question of the management of prisons and the conduct of the Chief Commissioner?

THE CHAIRMAN said, when this Motion had been disposed of, the whole Vote would be again before the Committee; but it would not be competent to the hon. Member to move a reduction of any Item previous to Item D.

Question put.

The Committee divided:-Ayes 24; Noes 120 Majority 96. (Div. List, No. 111.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. SULLIVAN thought the present a proper occasion for asking the Home Secretary, or his Representative, for some information as to the number of Catholic chaplains appointed to the prisons in this country. At an early part of the Session he had moved for a Return of the number of prisons in which there was an average of 50 Catholic prisoners and upwards during the year. He was Sir Joseph M'Kenna

SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY said, although he was unable to give their number, Roman Catholic chaplains would be appointed whenever there was a sufficient number of Roman Catholic prisoners, and would be paid upon the scale recommended by the Committee which sat upon this subject four or five years ago, and every endeavour would be made to bring all the Catholic prisoners to the same gaol where practicable.

MR. SULLIVAN expressed his satisfaction at the reply of the hon. Baronet, and inquired whether the number of 50 prisoners or upwards had been taken by Government as a minimum, or what number of prisoners would be held to justify the appointment of Catholic chaplains to the prisons?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, that. the appointment of chaplains had not been restricted to cases in which the Catholic prisoners numbered 50 and upwards. In his own county, Lancashire, the gaols had always had Roman Catholic chaplains, although the county was considered to be Protestant.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY trusted to be excused if he failed to address the Committee effectively upon a subject which was originally intended to be laid before the House by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), who was at that moment suffering from loss of voice. He was anxious to pass over a great many topics connected with prison management which he had expected English Members to refer to in the course of the evening. But having been connected for many years with the prisons of this country, he felt bound to take notice of some points in their management. He desired to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, to which he trusted a satisfactory response would be given. Now, great pains had been taken by Government with regard to prison diet, and he was bound to say that, in his opinion, the ordinary diet of the prisoners-if the food was properly cooked and of good quality, of which there sometimes appeared to be a doubt—was better than it used to be. At any rate, he did not think it would be fair to try