SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

HC Deb 03 June 1858 vol 150 cc1466-503

House in Committee of Supply. Mr. FitzRoy in the Chair.

(1.) £46,b75, Law Charges.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he observed that this Vote was £10,000 more than last year. He understood that was owing to the prosecution of the directors of the Royal British Bank, but it seemed to hint to be a most extravagant sum.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, he hoped the bill of costs would not be so much, but it had not yet been furnished, and they proceeded upon a rough estimate of the expense furnished by the solicitors in the case. Of course the country would have the benefit of any saving.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £150,000, Prosecutions.

MR. WILSON

said, he observed there was here a reduction of £100,000 from the sum voted last year. He was aware that savings bad been effected under this head in consequence of some inquiries that had been instituted by the late Government into this branch of expenditure. But he could hardly think the saving effected was so great, and, therefore, he wished to know whether this suns of £150,000 was expected to cover the whole expenditure of the year, or whether the hon. Gentleman was calculating upon the use of the unexpended balances from former years.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, there was no doubt that this sum would not cover the whole expenditure, but there were considerable balances in hand. He thought £200,000 would be required for the services of the year. The reductions alluded to by the hon. Gentleman were still going on, and he hoped that in the end a considerable saving would be the result,

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, the rule which had always been observed was to set down in the Estimates for the year the Estimate of the entire sum that was expected to be spent in the year; and if at the end any portion was left unspent it was made a saving, and returned into the Exchequer. The plan here pursued would not only prevent any fair comparison between the expenditure of different years, but what was of far more importance, it would disturb the balance which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to make between his estimated expenditure and his ways and means.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

admitted that the practice was to some extent objectionable, but the same course had been adopted last year.

MR. WILSON

said, the Secretary of the Treasury was in error. Relying on the balance that was in the Exchequer, the Government now asked for £150,000, though it was clear that £200,000 would have to be met from the ways and means of the year. The Estimate ought to be a criterion of the probable expenditure. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that he had saved £400,000 on the Miscellaneous Estimates he made a mistake; he would spend quite as large an amount as was spent last year, though he did not take a Vote for the whole sum. The Committee on Public Monies bad wisely recommended that the system adopted in regard to the Army and Navy Estimates should be applied to the Civil Service Estimates. That system prevented the Votes of one year from being devoted to defraying the expenditure of another year, and required the balances to be returned to the Exchequer.

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY

said, this appeared to him to be a very important question, and he agreed with the hon, Gentleman opposite, that the practice was fatal to the whole system of Estimates. He wished to know what was the precise amount of the balance now in hand, and what was the expenditure which the Government really anticipated for the year?

MR. W. WILLIAMS

observed, that he thought the principle avowed by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Wilson) of asking for more money than they expected to spend was highly objectionable. In his opinion the Estimates were nothing better than a farce.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, he would remind the Committee that the matter was fully explained in the marginal note in reference to this Estimate, which stated that the sum asked for would be sufficient, with the aid of the balances in hand. He could not at the moment state how much those balances were—they were very large—he thought about £50,000. He agreed that the practice was not a desirable one.

MR. WILSON

repeated, that unless the expenditure was distinctly stated, there was no proper comparison between different years. Besides, the balances from previous years were not strictly applicable to these purposes. Such a mistake as the present could not have occurred under the Army or Navy Estimates, for the Act of Parliament required that every surplus in those Votes should be returned to the Treasury, and every deficiency should be supplied by a fresh Vote. A Committee which lately sat on the application of public moneys, recommended that the same rule should apply to the Treasury, and his right hon. Friend (Sir George Lewis), before he left office, was about to introduce a Bill to carry these recommendations into effect. He wished to know whether the present Government were about to introduce that measure?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he had stated the other day, in answer to the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) that it was not desirable that the Estimates should continue to be framed in this form. Henceforward the Civil Service Estimates should be prepared in the same manner as the Naval and Military Estimates.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

suggested the postponement of this Vote until they knew the exact amount of the balance from last year.

SIR FRANCIS BARING

said, there was a great principle involved in this Vote. As it was, they did not know what they were voting. They were asked to vote £150,000 and the balances; but they did not know how much the balances were. He had no objection to the Vote, but he thought, for the sake of the principle, the House ought to postpone the Vote till they knew what the balances were.

COLONEL FRENCH

said, that the Go- vernment took credit for a decrease in this Vote, while they at the same time intended to avail themselves of the money now in hand.

MR. HANKEY

said, he had some time since moved for a return of all the unappropriated balances. If that return had been furnished, this item would have been amongst them. He wished now to ask the hon. Gentleman when that return might be expected.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he did not think it worth while to require the Government to withdraw the Vote, though in its present form it was certainly fallacious. There might be some diminution in its amount this year, but they had no means of ascertaining what that diminution was. He suggested that when the report of this Vote was brought up, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury should state what the actual expenses of the year would be.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, he would take care that the required explanation was furnished. He also wished to inform the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Han-key) that the return he had moved for would be produced very speedily.

MR. PULLER

said, he wished to say a word upon a point of some importance to the country. The expenses of apprehension of prisoners and the prelimininary examinations before the magistrates were no longer allowed by the Treasury. Now, he was not desirous of finding fault with his hon. Friend the late Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Wilson) for having taken care that none but legal charges were allowed. Still they might make economy too dear. Powers were now given to magistrates in petty session to order the payment of the costs of the apprehension of offenders, and he believed that it was the practice for Judges and courts of quarter sessions to allow these expenses after they had been first allowed by the committing magistrate. He believed, however, that the opinion of counsel had been taken, to the effect that the allowance was illegal; and the result was, that prosecutors having to pay all the expenses, were deterred from going on with prosecutions in all the minor classes of offences. He mentioned this in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would take the matter into his consideration and endeavour to provide some remedy for such a very mischievous state of things.

MR. WALPOLE

said, the subject of preliminary expenses for the prosecution of offenders had been under the consideration of a Commission. On that Commission were included the right hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Cardwell), another gentleman connected with the magistracy and a Master of the Common Pleas, and he was informed they had collected much valuable information. He hoped to be in possession of the Report of the Commission during the autumn or in the course of the winter, and in the meantime it would be prudent to allow matters to remain as they were.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, the great object that ought to be kept in view was to make a fair and reasonable allowance on the one hand to parties who had to give evidence against offenders in cases of prosecution, and on the other to protect the Treasury against a disposition that existed to raise these charges too high. He had to remind the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Puller) that in the rural police the constables were prohibited from receiving fees, being paid by salary.

MR. WILSON

said, what the Treasury did was really this: by the arrangement effected in 1846–7, by Sir Robert Peel, it was agreed that whatever expenses were at that time borne by the county rates should be borne by the Treasury. But these preliminary expenses for prosecutions were not then borne by the county rates, and therefore they were refused by the Treasury. But this was one among several instances where there was a tendency to slip charges which were not borne by a locality upon the country at large.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

said, he must beg pardon of the hon. Gentleman, but his impression certainly was that these charges did form part of the county rates, as an essential portion of the expenses of prosecution,

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he highly, approved of the appointment of a Commission, which he had no doubt would make a fair distinction as to the expenses that ought and those that ought not to be allowed.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, the Treasury wished to act literally on the principle laid down by Sir R. Peel in 1846, that counties were to be relieved from the expense of prosecutions. There bad been two judicial decisions laying down the meaning of the words "preliminary prosecutions," and it was on these decisions the Treasury now acted.

MR. NICOLL

said, he wished to ask if there was any prospect of the appointment of a public prosecutor?

Vote agreed to.

(3.) £214,200, Police (Counties and Boroughs and Police in Scotland).

MR. BAXTER

said, he was desirous of calling attention to the annual increase of this Vote. There was this year an increase of £68,220, of which he was aware £54,000 was for the establishment of the general police system in Scotland; but he wished to know what was the cause of the increase of £14,000 in England, and whether the Government had formed any estimate of the probable expense of the whole system when it was fully established?

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the Estimates for the last Session were only for a portion of the year, while those now before the House were for the whole year. The police force in many boroughs was inefficient last year, and no sum had been claimed by them under the Act of Parliament. The estimate he made was £200,000 for England and £25,000 for Scotland. The estimate this year, therefore, nearly amounted to the entire sum that would probably be chargeable under the Act. The police of the country having nearly attained to a standard of efficiency, the Vote would not be greatly increased beyond its present amount,

MR. BAXTER

said, that there were many boroughs in Scotland in which the Act was not yet in operation.

SIR GEORGE GREY

Scotland was a year behind England in adopting the Act.

Vote agreed to, as were the following two Votes:—

(4.) £200, Crown Office, Chancery.

(5.) £1,500, Crown Office, Queen's Bench.

(6.) £14,519, Sheriffs, &c.

MR. GRIFFITHS

said, he had to complain that the Sheriffs, whose office was compulsory, were put to expenses in the execution of the duties of their office, which they ought not to bear. The employment of javelin men was an old pageant that might well be allowed to fall into disuse, especially as the police did the real work. The custom, too, of the Sheriffs going in state to meet the Judges was was uncalled for; in one case he knew of, the Sheriff had to go from the county hall to the railway station—a distance of some fifty yards—in a carriage and four to meet the Judges. He should like to know what right a Judge had to fine a gentleman if he did not as Sheriff meet him with an equipage suitable to his dignity. The expenses necessary for these purposes at present fall upon the Sheriffs and that even without getting the credit of doing so; for the Government made a pretence of repaying them, but did so to so paltry a sum that it was perfectly contemptible the way in which they were treated. He thought that if the expensive formalities now insisted upon were to be kept up, they ought to be supported at the cost of the country, and not at the expense of private individuals, who were often unwillingly obliged to fulfil the office of High Sheriff.

MR. WALPOLE

was understood to reply that the office of Sheriff was an honorary office.

Vote agreed to.

(7.) £5,940, Registrar of Admiralty and Admiralty Court, Dublin.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

asked what duties the Registrar had to perform?

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, that the Registrar's duties were very extensive—so extensive, in fact, that during the war it was necessary to increase his allowance.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) £6,856, Insolvent Debtor's Court.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

asked whether the Government saw any difficulty in the way of abolishing these Courts and transferring their functions to the County Courts?

MR. WALPOLE

said, that such a transference would interfere with the duties of the County Court Judges. If the hon. Member had asked hint whether he did not think it would be advisable to consolidate the Bankruptcy and Insolvent Courts, he would have told him that that was a subject worthy of consideration, and he might have added that it was one which had occupied the attention of the Government.

MR. WILSON

said, that the subject had not escaped the attention of the late Government. Tbe whole of the business of the Insolvent Courts in the country had been transferred to the County Courts, but it was found in regard to London that the County Courts were overworked, and that it was not advisable to transfer other business to them.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he thought that the consolidation of the Courts of Bankruptcy and Insolvency would not only render the administration of justice more efficient, but would tend to a saving of expense. He was also anxious to hear from the Government whether it was in contemplation to do away with imprisonment for debt in cases where there was no fraud?

MR. WALPOLE

reminded the hon. Gentleman that there could be no present saving of expense by consolidating the Courts, because they could not discharge the Judges and other officers without giving them compensation. But while guarding himself from anything like a pledge on the subject, he might mention that for two months the Government had had under their consideration the question of consolidating the Bankruptcy and Insolvent Courts. It was also under the consideration of the Government whether it would not be wise to abolish imprisonment for debt, where it was unaccompanied by fraud.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

said, that in Ireland the Bankruptcy and Insolvent Courts had been consolidated, and that the system had proved efficient.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS

suggested that vacancies in either of the Courts should not for the present be filled up.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £35,162, Court of Probate and Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.

MR. BUTLER

wished to know whether this Vote included the expenses of the Prerogative Office? The Vote was very large.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

stated that the salaries of the officials connected with the Court of Probate were fixed by the Judge on the understanding that they should undergo revision when the new system was fully established. He was afraid that the experiment of the Court of Probate would be in some respects an expensive one, but, on the other hand, the sum received in the shape of fees promised to be very considerable. From the opening of the court in January to the 5th of May the fees amounted to no less a sum than £19,952. It would be the duty of the Treasury, however, to keep down the expenses of the court as much as possible.

MR. HADFIELD

inquired whether a Judge had been appointed to the Court of Arches. He complained that the Admiralty Court had not been thrown open to the profession generally, although that was one of the considerations which induced the House of Commons to incur the expense of the Court of Probate. No explanation had yet been given of the circumstance that a Member of the late Government struck out in the other House that clause of the recent Probate Act which abolished the monopoly in the Admiralty Court. The public had given ample compensation, but they had not got what had been promised.

MR. WALPOLE

said, that it was the duty of the present Government to carry out the Probate Act as it was passed. The House was aware that the appointment of the Judge in the Court of Arches was in the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Great difficulty had arisen, in consequence of the smallness of the salary, in finding a person willing to accept the office. The Lord Chancellor, however, was in communication with the Archbishop on the subject; but he could not at that moment state whether any decision had been arrived at.

MR. WILSON

said, that the understanding when the salaries were fixed was, that the fees should be commensurate to the expenses, so as to make the court, if possible, self-supporting. The present fees had been fixed as an experiment, and on the understanding that they should be revised within a twelvemonth.

MR. WARREN

said, that a Bill had been been introduced into the other House for amendment of the Probate Act, and it was his intention when that Bill came before them, to move the insertion of clauses for throwing open the practice in the Admiralty Court to the profession generally, and he trusted he should receive the support of the House.

MR. SALISBURY

said, that there was a strong feeling in the profession that the Admiralty Court should be thrown open to the bar generally.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he must press for an expression of opinion, from the Treasury bench.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he did not recede from the opinion which he expressed last year, that the Ecclesiastical Courts ought to be thrown open to the profession, and he should be glad to hear from the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Sir R. Bothell), who was not then in his place, the reasons why the clause was struck out in the House of Lords, to which reference had been made. Being in ignorance of those reasons it would not become him to give a pledge one way or the other as to the course which the Government ought to pursue. It should, however, be borne in mind that the Bill, as amended, came down again from the House of Lords, and that the objection to the omission ought to have been urged at that stage.

MR. HADFIELD

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir R. Bothell) had stated that he had never been consulted in the matter. They had been led to believe, when the Bill came down from the other House, that in this part of it it contained only verbal Amendments, and the omission of this clause had thus escaped notice. The late Attorney General had agreed that the whole monopoly of the proctors should be extinguished if compensation were given.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) Motion made, and Question pro-posed— That a sum, not exceeding £57,050, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Salaries and Expenses of the County Courts, to the 31st day of March, 1859.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, that though the Vote was less than that for last year, there was an item to which he must take objection, namely, the item of £55,000 for the expenses of providing court-houses, fees, stationery, and printing. The item had increased from £45,000 last year to £55,000 this year. By the original Act of 1846 the treasurers of County Courts were required to provide courts out of their salaries, and the principle was adhered to until an Act was passed two years ago with a provision that the Treasury should pay for the building of the courts. Great additional business had been thrown upon the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland, and those courts were very similar to the County Courts in England; but when a deputation waited upon the present Prime Minister not lone' ago, the Earl of Derby told them that all such charges as these ought to he met by the districts in which the courts were held. It was most unfair to call upon the people of Scotland to contribute to the maintenance of County Courts in England if the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland were not to be placed on the same footing.

Amendment proposed— That the item of £55,000, being the Expense of providing Court Houses, Offices, Stationery, Printing, &c. for the County Courts, be omitted from the proposed Vote.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, he was not prepared to say whether any alteration ought to made in the law as regarded Scotland; but the County Court system was productive of immense benefit in England, and it appeared to him that the public wore not paying too high a price for the blessing of cheap and expeditious justice. However that might be, he apprehended that it was provided by Act of Parliament, the 19th and 20th Vic., that County Court-houses should be provided for from the public resources. The result of last year's account was that the expenses of the registers and other matters was £272,000, and the amount derived from fees was £216,000, leaving a deficiency of £56,000, which formed part of the sum they were called on to vote. The total expense of County Courts was £244,000, which would be diminished as the amount of fees increased, and he believed that expenditure would not be grudged. Whether it was reasonable or expedient that there should be an alteration of the law with regard to Scotland was not the question before the Committee, and ought not to be mixed up with this Vote.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, he hoped his noble Friend would not press his Amendment; the vote for the registry was only £45,000, although the hon. Gentleman stated the difference was £56,000.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he hoped that the Government would give a pledge to bring in a Bill to repeal the clause which had been slipped into the last Act, imposing this burden on the public funds. He thought the expense of constructing courthouses ought to be defrayed by the different districts in England, as it was defrayed in Ireland.

MR. WILSON

said, it had never been intended that the cost of erecting courthouses should be paid by the treasurer of each court personally; and the Act of 1846 merely provided that the treasurer should meet that charge out of the sum derived from fees. He wished to take that opportunity of asking his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury how it happened that the difference between the salaries and the fee fund, which amounted last year to £56,000 was set down at £45,000 for the present year, thus showing a saving of £11,000? There was also a general feeling that the high bailiffs were overpaid officers, and the late Government had thought it right to institute inquiries into the subject. He (Mr. Wilson) had heard of a case where a County Court Judge had appointed his own brother-in-law high bailiff of his court, who was a medical practitioner living ten miles off. He wished to know whether the present Government meant to pursue their inquiries?

MR. SALISBURY

said, that a great deal of expense attending the County Court system might be saved by buying off the high bailiffs, who were of no manner of use.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, that the diminution of £11,000 in the salaries, as compared with the fee fund, arose from an estimated increase in the fund to that amount. With regard to the ease of the high bailiffs, he had to state that he was engaged in an inquiry into that subject with a view to diminish or to remove what there was some reason to suppose was to a great extent an unneccessary expenditure.

MR. BAXTER

, remarked, that he believed the Treasury were not acquainted with the state of things in Scotland; unless they wished to have justice come to a stand, they should take steps to provide courts. He trusted his noble Friend would press the matter to a division, unless he got a distinct pledge from the Government that the subject would be considered.

MR. MACARTNEY

suggested, that in any changes which were made some provision should be contained for obliging the treasurers to do their duty themselves, and not by deputy.

MR. WILSON

said, he could assure the hon. Member that in the whole range of public offices there were no gentlemen who had harder duties to perform than the treasurers of County Courts, and yet, he believed, none of those gentlemen had their duties performed by deputy. Indeed if any ease came to the knowledge of the Treasury of one of these officers delegating his duties to a deputy, it would be the subject of severe animadversion.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, he found in ther48th clause of the Act passed in 1864, a provision made that treasurers, with the approval of the Secretary of State, should provide court-houses for the courts; and in the second Act he found that the Commissioners of the Treasury were to pay for such court-houses out of any money which might be provided from time to time for the purpose. The question was whether this was a bad thing or not. If it were founded on a bad principle they ought not to grant the money; but if it were granted in England it also ought to be granted in the case of Scotland. The Sheriffs' Court in the latter country were the same as the County Courts in England, and they certainly ought to be placed on the same footing.

SIR JOHN OGILVY

said, he should support the Motion of the noble Lord as he contended with him, that if the principle on which the court-houses for the English County Courts were provided was a good one, it ought to be extended to the other side of the Tweed, He also must complain of the meagre amount of information supplied by the printed estimate in reference to the subject under discussion, and to the manner in which the money was to be appropriated.

MR, ADAMS

said, that the County Court Act showed that, in truth, the expense of providing court-houses was charged on the fee fund, of which the County Court treasurers were the administrators, and it never did, at any time, fall as a charge on any other quarter. The Committee must deal with this as a good or a bad Vote per se. if it was a bad Vote, he could not understand how it could be made more acceptable by extending it to Scotland. Besides, the expenditure to which objection was taken by the noble Lord did not refer to buildings only. On the contrary, he believed it would be found that the proportion of the money applied solely to court houses was comparatively smal1.

MR. COWAN

said, this was not merely a question of court-houses, but it was a question whether justice should be decently administered or not. The accommodation for the Sheriffs was most deficient in Edinburgh, and he had already brought the matter before Parliament, when he was promised that means should be taken to remedy a state of things so utterly discreditable. The same state of things still continued by which the suitors and the public were put to almost intolerable inconvenience. As an illustration, he might add that superintendent of police in Edinburgh conducted his business in a cellar. He trusted the noble Lord would persevere in his Amendment.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he was surprised at the course taken by the Scotch Members, as it was not long since they had boasted of providing court-houses for themselves. The English County Courts were obtained, not at the expense of the public, but by means of a tax charged on the suitors. For some years those fees were not paid for the Judges or the officers, but for the building of the County Courts. Ultimately it was thought advisable that the fees should be placed under the control of the Treasury, and that all the expenses should appear in the annual Estimates; but at this moment a large portion of the funds contributed by the suitors was applied to the building of courts. Were Scotch Members prepared to vote for a fee being imposed on Scotch suitors for the building of Sheriffs' Courts? That would place the two countries on a footing of equality. Besides, the question really before the Committee was, not whether it was a reasonable proposition that some new provision should be made for the erection and maintenance of courts in Scotland, but whether it was desirable in the administration of justice, which was now being brought home to the doors of the people of England, to deprive them of those buildings wherein justice was administered. He submitted that that would not be a reasonable course to adopt; but if, on a comparison of the facilities which were afforded to the two countries in respect to court-houses, it should appear that sufficient provision was not made for Scotland, let that form the subject of a distinct proposition to be submitted to the House hereafter.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, if hon. Members would examine the Estimates, they would find that in 1857 the amount of the suitors' fee fund was £216,000, while the salaries of registrars and high bailiffs came to £272,000; being a difference of £56,000 or £1000 more than was now attempted to be obtained for the building and maintenance of the courts, and which was, by Act of Parliament, to be provided out of the Estimates. Under these circumstances, he was at a loss to understand on what ground the right hon. Gentleman could state that the suitors' fee fund was applicable to the expense of building and maintaining the court-houses.

MR. DUNLOP

said, that they had borrowed the idea of the establishment of County Courts in England from the Sheriffs' Courts of Scotland; but inasmuch as there was no means of providing for the court buildings for the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland, be did not see why the country should be asked for a large sum of money for the County Court buildings in England. No doubt, it was for the Government to determine how provision should be made for the decent administration of justice. If they said it should be provided for by means of a county rate, or by means of fees, let them bring in a Bill for that purpose; but, on the other hand, if they thought the burden should fall on the public taxes, Scotch Members might fairly contend that Scotland should be dealt with in the same manner as England. Justice was dear to all, and it was highly advisable to afford to the poor man cheap and speedy means of obtaining it; yet, unless the Government would give a pledge that the administration of justice in Scotland should be improved in this respect, he should vote against the Estimate.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, he sympathised with the desire of the Scotch Members to obtain assistance for the Sheriffs' Courts, but he thought that they might take a much better course than dividing the House against this Vote. It had been admitted to be a sound general principle, that the expense of the administration of justice should be defrayed out of the public funds, but it was quite a mistake to suppose that the expense of the Sheriffs' Courts of Scotland were paid for by a rate; that was by no means the general practice—sometimes the buildings were provided for by a voluntary assessment, sometimes by a local Act of Parliament, and sometimes by a rate. Still, however anomalous the law might be in this respect in Scotland, he submitted that the way to remedy it was, not to refuse to England that which was essential to the carrying out of an important system of jurisprudence, which had recently been established, and which was found to work efficiently.

MR. BLACK

said, he only required for Scotland what was just and fair. The course pursued by the noble Lord was the only effectual way of making known the grievance of which he complained.

MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT

said, he must again remind the hon. Member that there was no proposition before the Committee for the benefit of Scotland. If the proposition were to transfer the money from England to Scotland, that would be robbing Peter to pay Paul, but as it at present stood the Amendment would rob Peter, but it would not pay Paul. His noble Friend (Viscount Duncan) having given expression to his wishes, should leave the matter in the hands of the Government.

MR,. J. D. FITZGERALD

said, he thought it would be very inconvenient to take a division upon the Vote, and certainly the adoption of the noble Lord's Amendment would be disastrous to his own views, There was no proposition before the Committee to provide court-houses, but the result of the adoption of the Amendment would be to arrest the administration of justice in the County Courts. It was true that in Ireland all the expenses of building court-houses were paid out of the county rates, and he thought England should be placed upon an equal footing with Ireland and Scotland in that respect, but in order to arrive at that end, he would not recommend the refusal of the present Vote, but that a separate measure should be prepared upon the subject.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

observed that hon. Members who wished for equality should remember that in Scotland the Sheriffs Courts were not only civil but criminal courts, in which the larger portion of the criminal business of the county was disposed of. The criminal courts in this country were paid out of the borough and county rates. And yet Scotch Members now declared that while England paid for the building of her criminal courts out of rates, Scotland was entitled to have her criminal courts paid for out of the Consolidated Fund. He would ask Scotch Members whether that was equality. As to the civil business transacted in the Scotch courts, be would remind the Committee that they were not discussing a Scotch Vote, but one for carrying out an elaborate system under which a great part of the legal business of the country was disposed of. It appeared as if Scotch Members wanted to stop the supplies necessary for the administration of Justice in England, in order to extort from the Government a promise to do something for the benefit of Scotland. That was neither the fair nor the proper way to deal with a question which he admitted to be of gravity and deserving of consideration, but which should be deliberated on in the shape of a Bill prepared for the purpose. Then, again, he would ask hon. Members to consider the nature of the fund from which the expenses of the County Courts were paid. In order that there might be a control over the fees the moneys were paid into the public revenue and appeared in the estimates, but that circumstance did not alter the nature of the trust with which they were impressed when collected. The noble Lord had compared the £272,000 paid for salaries, &c., with the £216,010 received in fees, and argued that there was, consequently, a deficiency of £56,000. As to figures the noble Lord was right, but he must bear in mind the purpose to which Parliament had directed those fees to be applied. In the original County Court Act there was a section enacting that for the purpose of raising sums for providing courthouses and offices, and for paying off money borrowed, certain fees should be charged, to be regulated by the Secretary of State. The County Court clerk was to pay the fees to the treasurer, and then it was provided that the fund should be applied towards paying the interest upon sums borrowed, to paying rent and other expenses necessarily incurred in holding the courts, to paying off sums borrowed, and to defraying other expenses charged upon the general fund, the surplus, if any, to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. Thus, Parliament had given the County Court officers authority to demand from every plaintiff certain fees to be applied upon certain trusts strictly defined. He was aware that a subsequent Act of Parliament contained a provision which charged the Commissioners of the Treasury with making good, out of sums to be obtained from Parliament from time to time, the whole of the deficiency which might arise in the necessary expenses for the building of the courts in question; but, then, that provision by no means repealed the section in the previous Act to which he had just, referred. Those hon. Gentlemen who supported the proposition of the noble Lord opposite talked of fairness, but he would ask them whether it was in accordance with common honesty that they should thus seek to violate a trust? The fees were in fact a trust fund; the trusts were distinctly defined by Parliament, and the public had a right to demand that the money should be applied to the purposes for which it was taken. He could assure the noble Lord that this was money which could not properly be applied to the payment of salaries till every shilling that was necessary had been expended in providing courts. [Viscount DUNCAN: No.] The noble Lord might say No, but he could assure the noble Lord that if he were appointed a trustee and were to deal with the trust property as he asked the Committee to deal with the fund under discussion, he would be guilty of a breach of trust, and would be bound to make good the whole of the money himself, Parliament in its omnipotence could of course do what it pleased in the matter, but he would nevertheless advise the Committee to hesitate before they converted money which was properly applicable to the build- ing of court-houses to a totally different purpose

MR. WILSON

said, that while entertaining a strong opinion that it would be very inexpedient to adopt the course proposed by the noble Lord, he was anxious to correct a misstatement on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman with reference to the applicability of the suitors' fee fund, ss he thought the hon, and learned Gentleman had not put the matter in its proper light before the Committee. It was no doubt perfectly true that the Act of 1846 made the expenses for the building of court-houses a trust-charge upon the fees in question; but by a law which had been passed two years ago those fees were confined to two specific purposes—those purposes being the payment of the salaries of the registrar and the high bailiff; while the expenses for court-houses were made chargeable upon sums to be voted by the House of Commons, and therefore it was that they appeared in the estimate as a separate and distinct Vote. The Committee would further bear in mind that the original Act provided that all existing courthouses in England should be applicable to the purposes of the County Courts, and it was only in those cases where there was no accommodation that Parliament was applied to for the purpose of supplying money to build courts.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he was perfectly ready to admit the financial capacity of the hon. Gentleman, but he must excuse him if he observed that he was altogether under a mispprehension of the law of the case. The Act of Parliament which had been passed two years ago simply provided that, for purposes of mere convenience, and to avoid the needless remittance of money backwards and forwards, the payments of the salaries of the registrar and high-bailiff should be made out of those fees, instead of their being remitted in the first instance to the Treasury, Parliament undertaking to recoup the money thus laid out. He might add that the Act which was passed two years ago, while distinctly setting forth that it operated as a repeal of several of the clauses of the original Act, left untouched the 57th clause, which was still in force, and under the operation of which the trust upon the fees still continued to exist.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he could not support the proposition of the noble Lord. He considered the establishment of the County Courts was the most important law reform that had ever taken place in this country, and nobody could deny the enormous benefits which resulted therefrom. Tim real question, however, was, whether justice was done to Scotland; for his part, he should wish to see the three kingdoms placed upon the same footing in respect to this matter.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, if any right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench would rise and repeat the statement of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), he would at once withdraw his Motion. He admired the system of County Courts as much as any one, and he did not want to impede the administration of justice, but he was convinced that, if they stopped this £55,000 to-night, the immediate effect would be that the Solicitor General would come down to-morrow with a Bill in his hand to provide for the payment out of the public money of the necessary buildings for administering justice in all parts of the United Kingdom.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, this was not a Vote for carrying out an Act just passed, but for defraying the expenses of a system which, with the approbation of the Legislature and the country, had been established several years for the administration of justice, and he therefore hoped that the noble Lord would not, even for the sake of advancing what he thought a just principle, overthrow that system. If the noble Lord thought that Scotland was entitled to what he claimed for her, let him discuss that question on some future occasion upon its own merits. The noble Lord filled an office in the late Government, and he therefore appealed to him, as a statesman, whether the course he was pursuing was not inexpedient and unfair.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he thought that his noble Friend deserved great credit for the gallantry with which he had fought the battle of his own country—a battle which exceeded in interest and importance the fight about the unicorn. He hoped, however, that his noble Friend would be content with the glory he had won, because the stopping of a Vote like this could only be justified in a most extreme case. This Vote was for carrying out the provisions of an Act of Parliament by which most important improvements were effected in the administration of justice. It was not a prospective Vote that could be postponed without inconvenience, but a Vote which was absolutely necessary for carrying on the admi- nistration of these County Courts. If the House were to refuse this Vote, they would, in the first place, shake the confidence of the country in Acts of Parliament, the carrying out of which required grants from the Consolidated Fund. In the next place, they would paralyze at once one of the most important improvements in modern times in the administration of justice, whereby justice was brought to the door of every poor man in the country. They would, therefore, be punishing the great bulk of the population of this country merely for the purpose of effecting that which ought to be effected by some other course. He hoped the House would not be induced to support the noble Lord. If it were right that the arrangements which had been made with regard to England should be extended to Scotland and Ireland, well and good; but that should be effected, not by stopping this Vote, but by the introduction of a Bill.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he hoped the noble Lord would respond to the appeal which had been made to him. He could assure him that there was no wish on the Ministerial side of the House to obtain any advantage for England at the expense of Scotland or Ireland. After very ample discussion in the Legislature, and considerable agitation throughout the country, that most important improvement in the administration of justice in this country—the County Court system—was established with the general sanction of the Legislature and the country. The proposition of the noble Lord was absolutely to arrest the fulfilment of the intentions of the Legislature and the country, and to withdraw national support from a mode of administering justice which had given universal satisfaction. If the noble Lord thought the incidence of taxation in England, Scotland, and Ireland should he inquired into, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would never oppose an inquiry of that kind. With his full consent the noble Lord might be appointed Chairman of the Committee to which that inquiry might be intrusted. From the knowledge which he had of the ability and impartiality of the noble Lord, as shown in the Committee upon the land revenues of this country, he had no doubt that such an inquiry under the noble Lord's direction would be most satisfactorily pursued and end in important results. The House, he was sure, would listen with respect to those results, and if the noble Lord could show that Scotland suffered any injustice, and that England was a favoured country compared with Scotland, there could be no doubt that the noble Lord's appeal for justice to Scotland would be respectfully listened to. Put the present proposition of the noble Lord was to arrest improvement in England, and not to secure improvement in Scotland. The House, he was sure, would never assent to so unfair and unwise a proposition. He should be the first to support any just proposition which the noble Lord might hereafter make with regard to the incidence of taxation in Scotland.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, he was unwilling to waste the time of the House, and he could conscientiously assert that it would give him the very greatest pain to obstruct the administration of justice in the County Courts of England. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would attend to what he was about to say. He would certainly be prepared at once to withdraw his present Motion, if he clearly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that if a Bill to have the expenses of providing County Courts in Scotland paid for out of the Consolidated Fund were brought in he would support it.

MR. WISE

said, as the noble Lord was a Lord of the Treasury under the late Government, he wished to know whether he did not as such approve these Estimates?

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

In answer to my hon. Friend I beg leave to say that the late Government did not prepare these Estimates.

MR. WILSON

said, it was owing to mere accident that they were not prepared by the late Government, but that there would not have been the slightest difference between their Estimates and those now before the House.

SIR WILLIAM DUNBAR

, said, he thought the noble Lord would exercise a sound discretion by withdrawing the Motion.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, his purpose had been mainly answered by the discussion which had taken place. He hoped that discussion would not be lost sight of when the next Estimates were framed, and under these circumstances he should now withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(11.) Motion made and Question proposed,— That a sum, not exceeding £25,428, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Police Courts of the Metropolis, to the 31st day of March, 1859.

VISCOUNT DUNCAN

said, on the last Vote he was asked to produce a case where criminal courts were provided for out of the Consolidated Fund. Here was one.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he must also complain of the system by which the police courts of a particular district were supported at the public expense. This was unfair to the rest of the country, and he should therefore move the reduction of the Vote by £7,430, the amount of salaries for clerks.

MR. KINNAIRD

remarked, that his hon. Friend had objected to the wrong item.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

complained that the Estimate was not drawn in an intelligible manner.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, it should be more explicit next year.

Amendment proposed—. That the item of £7,430, for the Salaries of Clerks of the Police Courts of the Metropolis, be omitted from the proposed Vote.

MR. HORSFALL

said, he did not mean to object to the Vote, but certainly thought that the expense of the Metropolitan police courts ought not to be borne by the country generally. Other large towns defrayed these expenses themselves, and the general feeling was that London ought to do the name.

MR. D. NICOLL

asked for explanation as to an item of £2,000 for rent of premises, although £17,900 had been expended this year in building new police offices.

MR. HARDY

explained that there were a great number of houses rented.

MR. PEASE

said, he did not think it was fair to the counties to pass those large sums for the Metropolitan police courts.

Mr. AYRTON

said, that the Metropolitan police stood upon a different ground to that occupied by the rural police. The Metropolitan police was a great national force, available for any part of the Kingdom in case of necessity, and under the control of the Government.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he thought that there should be no objection to a national payment to the Metropolitan police, seeing that this police did so large an amount of national duty.

MR. COX

said, he quite concurred that it was very desirable that there should be no application to the Consolidated Fund for the police of the Metropolis; but then their police force should be on the same footing as that of the country. Three-fourths of the expense of the police of the Metropolis was maintained by rates, and the other fourth was paid by the Government, to enable them to use the police—to use them as foreign spies, to attend at places where discussion societies were held, and to obtain evidence against Dr. Bernard or against some publisher. That was the reason why one-fourth part of the charge was placed on the Consolidated Fund.

MR. HADFIELD

said, he thought that the police of Manchester or those of Liverpool were national as well as those of London; but that it was not only for the police of London but for other things—for the parks and bridges—that the country were called on to pay. It was unjust, and he thought that they ought to bring the thing to a test. He was therefore inclined to oppose the whole Vote.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

thought his hon. Friend misunderstood the position of the inhabitants of London in regard to the police. They had nothing to do with their government, and at one-half of the rates they had to pay they could provide a police quite sufficient for the purposes of the Metropolis; while at present he walked from that House to the Regent's Park at all hours of the night and scarcely ever met a policeman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(12.) Motion made and Question proposed,— That a sum, not exceeding £128,607, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, to the 31st day of March, 1859.

MR. GRIFFITH

said, that, in his opinion, a lesson might be taken from the Continental police as regarded their action in cases of obstruction in public thoroughfares. Many streets in London were periodically obstructed, to the great annoyance of hon. Members returning home; and, as far as he could see, the police had little or no control in the matter.

MR. GILPIN

said, he did not know how it was, but perhaps hon. Gentlemen had more personal attractions than he had, and that might account for his not being insulted when going home from the House. He wished to ask the Secretary for the Home Department if he could give any ex- planation as to the very large increase in the amount to be voted in payment of salaries. There was an increase of about £25,000. He wished to know whether there was any sum paid for the expense of foreign police. The increase was from £103,645 to £128,607.

MR. WALPOLE

explained that a portion of the increase in the Vote was to be accounted for by the fact that power was given by an Act of last Session to raise, on the security of the rates, a large sum of money for the establishment of new police districts in the Metropolis. Among the items included in this Vote there was also one of £33,175 as a contribution to make good the deficiency in the police superannuation fund.

MR. MASSEY

said, that representations having been made to his right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary that various new districts in the suburbs of the metropolis were left entirely unprotected by the police, it became necessary to appoint a large number of men, with inspectors and sergeants in proportion, to meet the demands of the inhabitants in those districts. That number of men did not fall much short of 450, and the expense amounted to between £25,000 and £26,000. The new districts comprised a line of streets, and roads that extended over fourteen miles.

MR. NICOLL

said, that the increased expense of the police might, to some extent, be accounted for by the variety of duties they were called upon to perform. Amongst others he alluded to the arrangement by which the proprietors of theatres and other places of entertainment, as well as of private houses, hired their services, on account of which an item of £5,550 figured in the columns of this Vote. That practice was open to abuse, and it had come to his knowledge as a magistrate that the police in a certain case had been acting as door-keepers to one of the greatest sinks of iniquity in the metropolis. The Police Act required amendment, not only on this head, but also in respect to the basis of the rating.

MR. AYRTON

strongly condemned the system of passing Bills through that house, imposing new charges on the public, without an estimate of the amount of those charges being first laid on the table. The increase in the Vote under discussion was a consequence of the reckless manner in which such statutes were passed.

MR. GRIFFITH

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, would give an answer to his question, which was one of a practical nature. The right hon. Gentleman had received deputations relative to the social evil; and it was well known that the pavements in the neighbourhood of King Street, St. James's, were obstructed by a class of persons to whose character he need not more particularly allude. There never were any policemen within reach to remedy this inconvenience.

MR. WALPOLE

If the hon. Member would look into the original Police Act he would see there was a power given to the police to prevent the persons to whom he referred from doing anything to annoy passers-by; but for the police to interfere beyond that would be regarded as a most arbitrary proceeding. The subject had been brought under his attention, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that everything which could be required for proper order and decency in the streets, and to prevent annoyance to persons passing along, was provided by the Police Act; that everything which could be done within reasonable limits should he done, but beyond that he must say, once for all, he should decline to interfere.

SIR JOHN TRELAWNY

was understood to object to the Vote, on the ground that it applied to purely metropolitan objects, and to suggest its postponement until further information on the subject had been obtained.

MR. WILSON

said, he thought the Vote was fully explained by the printed estimates. The total estimated expenditure was £464,283, of which £300,895 was contributed by the metropolitan districts, and sums received from other sources raised this amount to £340,187, leaving a balance including the charge for additional inspectors and sergeants,—whose appointment was now under the consideration of the Secretary of State,—of £128,710, which was the amount to which the charge on the public was limited by various Acts of Parliament. There had been a considerable increase in the Vote in consequence of the necessary extension of the police force, but three-fourths of this increase were defrayed by local rates, and the remaining fourth was a charge upon the public.

MR. HADFLELD

said, that the police force was increased in consequence of the extension of the London suburbs, where, notoriously, the richest of the London population resided; and in order to protect their property and persons the whole coun- try was taxed. That was unfair, and he should, therefore, resist the Vote.

The Committee divided:— Ayes 157; Noes 28: Majority, 129.

Vote agreed to, as was also the next Vote,

(13.) £3,495, Queen's Prison.

(14.) £3,342, Lord Advocate and Solicitor General, Scotland.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, that this Vote constituted a grievance for England, as the salaries of the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General in Scotland formed an expense not existing in the case of the English Attorney and Solicitor General. He was aware that the latter were remunerated by fees, but he believed that the Scotch law officers also received emoluments of that kind.

MR. MACMAHON

said, that the expenses of the administration of justice for Scotland were much greater in proportion to the population of the country than was the expense of administering justice in either England or Ireland. The sum required for Scotland was £110,000, while the charge for justice in Ireland, exclusive of the charges for the Dublin and country police, which amounted to £700,000, was only about £73,000. He should also contend that the present state of the law of Scotland inflicted great hardship upon England. He could instance a recent case in which an Englishman who had dealings with a Scotchman sent him a letter which the latter considered libellous. The latter commenced an action for libel, and, proceeding by "indictal citation," obtained judgment by default, and then set off the damages obtained in this action against a sum due from him to the other on account of goods. It had even been made a matter of discussion amongst Scotch lawyers, whether, if an Englishman left an umbrella or a toothpick behind him in Scotland, that would not afford a foundation for a process against him by "indictal citation." Then they had no habeas corpus in Scotland, which was another defect in the law of that country.

MR. NICOLL

observed, that in Scotland the Lord Advocate was also the public prosecutor, and he wanted to know why the benefits of such an office should be confined to that part of the United Kingdom?

MR. W. EWART

said, he would remind the House of the opinion of the present Chief Justice of the Common Pleas when Attorney General, who recommend- ed the gradual introduction of the system of public prosecutors in a way to suit as much as possible the system now in existence, and he trusted the present Government would give that recommendation their careful consideration.

MR. MILES

said, that as one of the Committee appointed to inquire into that subject, he could speak of the great assistance given them by that very learned Judge, as well as by the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He said the evidence before that Committee showed how much better the criminal business of the country was conducted in Scotland and in Ireland than it was in England, and he trusted his hon. Friends in the present Government would take that evidence into their consideration.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that this was a subject which, but for its importance, would long since have received the great and anxious consideration of the Government; but he must remind the Committee that from the late period of the Session when the present Government came into office, their capability to consider important questions had been necessarily limited. He could say for himself, that from the hour that he had accepted office, every moment not engaged in other public business had been given to subjects of law reform, which would be submitted to the consideration of Parliament either in this or in the other House. One of these subjects was the bankrupt law, which involved as large a number of important questions as any one could undertake; but he was happy to say that it was a subject which was now nearly in a state to be submitted to Parliament. Another subject which had engaged the attention of his hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General, namely, the appointment of a Minister of Justice, had also occupied his time, and he hoped, as soon as he could obtain an evening free from still more important business, to be able to submit a Bill to the House on that subject. He hoped also to submit several Bills for a first reading for the consolidation of important branches of the statute law, and he proposed to move for a Committee to consider the appointment of a Board not only for the consolidation of the statutes now in existence, but for the revision also of any Bills which the House might think proper to refer to it in their progress through Parliament. With these and other subjects his attention had been entirely engaged, so as to make it quite impossible for him to give the evidence of the Committee alluded to his attention. But to that evidence he would devote any time which he could secure from the subjects which he had now in hand, and he hoped he might yet be able to submit a measure on the subject. With regard to the particular Vote before the Committee, it might be unknown to many hon. Members that the law officers of the Crown in England received no salary, but received fees in criminal prosecutions. On the other hand, the Lord Advocate and his learned colleague were obliged to leave their homes and spend nearly a quarter of the year in London, and to give their attention to the maturing measures to please the fastidious tastes of a large section of the House. It was necessary in these circumstances that they should receive salaries, but the salaries they did receive appeared to him very inadequate for the services rendered by the law officers of Scotland.

MR. MACMAHON

said, he must protest against the doctrine that the criminal business of England was worse done than in Ireland or Scotland; for he had before proved to the House, and he hoped to prove again, should a Bill for the institution of a public prosecutor be introduced, that the business in England was better done than in either of the other two countries. For proof of this he might instance the case of the British Bank delinquents as compared with the case of the directors of the Western Bank of Scotland, who, with the whole system of public prosecutors and procurators-fiscal, were still at large and unquestioned.

Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes.

(15.) £18,577, Court of Session, Scotland.

(16.) £11,261, Court of Justiciary Scotland.

(17.) £5,550, Criminal Prosecutions, Scotland.

(18.) £1,860, Legal Branch of Exchequer, Scotland.

(19.) £25,000, Sheriffs' Courts, Scotland.

(20.) £11,955, Procurators Fiscal, Scotland.

(21.) £13,110, Sheriff Clerks, Scotland.

(22.) £2,250, Solicitor of the Crown, &c., Scotland.

Motion made and Question proposed,— That a sum, not exceeding £15,118, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries and Expenses of the several Offices in Her Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh, to the 31st day of March, 1859.

MR. CAIRD

said, he wished to call attention to the cost of the fees for the transfer of land, which were double the cost of the work itself. The late Government held out some hope of those fees being reduced, and he hoped the present Government would carry out the intentions of their predecessors.

MR. COWAN

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to an item of £1,000, included in the Vote for the salary of the Keeper of the Registry of Sasines. He wished to know whether a Treasury Minute had not been made some time since recommending that upon the occasion of a vacancy this appointment should not be renewed, on the ground that it was a sinecure. He was desirous also of asking the late Secretary of the Treasury whether the late Government had not when in a moribund state filled up this lucrative appointment, notwithstanding the Treasury Minute in question?

MR. WILSON

said, it was quite true that some two or three years ago the Queen's Remembrancer in Scotland called the attention of the Treasury to this office as a sinecure, and recommended that it should be abolished on the death of its then holder. Last summer the holder of the office died, Mr. Pringle, the salary being then £1,500 a year. The Treasury then proposed to abolish the office, but his hon. Friend, who was then Lord Advocate, decided that the office should not be abolished, but amalgamated with some other, and made a real working office. He might add that the general feeling of the legal profession in Scotland was very much opposed to the extinction of the office. The salary had, however, been reduced from £1,500 to £1,000. He believed he was correct in stating that the present Lord Advocate concurred in the expediency of those amalgamations, and in the policy of retaining the office.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, if the office was a sinecure in the hands of Mr. Pringle a sinecure it was still; because, with the single exception that the salary was somewhat reduced, it remained now exactly as it was. There was no amalgamation; Mr. Brodie, the present holder, was keeper of Sasines, and nothing else; but at the same time he must say that he believed the continuance of the office was highly necessary, and he could not conceive how any one acquainted with the titles of land in Scotland could think otherwise. As to the question of the hon. Member for Dartmouth (Mr. Caird), it was quite true that there was a surplus of some £4,000 or £5,000 a year over and above the expenses of the establishment, arising from fees; and to that extent, perhaps, they might be reduced. But he might state that it was intended to centralise all the local registers under one office in Edinburgh, which would effect a further saving of expense; but till that was done he was afraid he could not hold out much hope of diminishing the fees.

MR. COWAN

remarked, that however important the duties might be, they had not hitherto been discharged by the Keeper of Sasines, but by the deputy keeper. He felt so strongly that this was something approaching the character of a job, that he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000.

Amendment proposed— That the item of £1,000, being the Salary of the Keeper of the General and Particular Registers of Sasines, be omitted from the proposed Vote.

MR. WILSON

said, he must complain that the Lord Advocate had in one part of his speech said there was no amalgamation of duties, and in the other pointed out the amalgamation that was to be effected. The centralization of the local offices under the one Keeper in Edinburgh was the very amalgamation the late Government contemplated.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. He repeated that there had been no amalgamation, and certainly none would be effected by the centralization he contemplated. He might add that he was not aware, nor had he found any trace, of its being the intention of the late Government to bring in such a Bill as he referred to.

MR. WILSON

said, that such was the fact nevertheless.

MR. BAXTER

said, he hoped the Scotch Members who often complained of profusion in regard to English Votes would resist this job as applied to Scotland. But there was an earlier Vote he wished to object to—that of Lord Clerk Registrar, to which was appended a salary of £1,200. That office was a decided sinecure, for it was held by the Marquess of Dalhousie while he was Governor General of India, while the du- ties of the office were in reality discharged by an assistant keeper, and he thought the high salary should be given to the official who did the work. He should like to hear from the Lord Advocate something regarding the honorary office of Lord Clerk Registrar, and what were the intentions of the Government regarding it.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

remarked, that he did not very clearly understand what were the grounds of the objection taken to the arrangement made by the late Government, or on what grounds it was proposed to omit from the Vote the salary of the Keeper of the Registrar of Sasines. The Lord Advocate had given his opinion that the gentleman holding that office discharged duties that should be discharged, and that it was impossible the office could be abolished. In these circumstances he did not understand what was the ground of objection—whether it was an objection to the maintenance of the office or to the competency of the individual who discharged its duties.

MR. DUNLOP

said, the office of Lord Clerk Registrar, now held by the Marquess of Dalhousie, was, no doubt, a sinecure, but as it was an old and an honourable office he should be sorry to see it abolished. The better course would be not to maintain it as a sinecure, but to turn it to some advantage, which could easily be done in connection with the Register House. He was sorry to hear from the Lord Advocate that there was to be no consolidation of the offices, of which there had been a general expectation. After the late Government had tendered their resignation, they appointed as Keeper of the Register of Sasines a man of great eminence in his profession—so eminent that he could not find time to attend to the duties of his office. He thought that on principle there was an objection to the appointment of persons of too high practice to an office like this.

MR. CUMMING BRUCE

had been informed by one of the clerks of the office that nothing could exceed the zeal and ability with which the present holder of the office discharged his duties. He could not concur in the view expressed by the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop), for the duties of this office were so important that he thought men of the very highest professional ability should be selected to fill it.

MR. G. DUNDAS

said, this was a job perpetrated by the late Government alter their resignation. It was generally ex- pected in Scotland that the office would have been conferred upon a gentleman employed at the Register House in Edinburgh, thoroughly conversant with all the duties of the post, and a man of great erudition and antiquarian knowledge; but on the break up of the late Government they appointed a gentleman who had strong political claims upon them, and thus effected a job which had caused the greatest dissatisfaction.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

, in reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), said there was no doubt that the office of Lord Clerk Register was an honorary one, and had been so for a century back and more. It was now held by the Marquess of Dalhousie. He put it to the House, however, whether they would interfere rashly with an office that was established under an Act of Parliament.

MR. HORSMAN

said, whether they called this office an honorary one or a sinecure it was clearly all anomaly. It had been held by the Marquess of Dalhousie even when he was Governor General of India. He wished to know whether in any future measure that might be introduced it was in the contemplation of the Government to do away with this office when the next vacancy occurred?

MR. BAXTER

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether he could move an Amendment to the Vote for the Lord Clerk Registrar, though it came before the Vote objected to by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan).

MR. CHAIRMAN

said, that the earlier item could not be discussed unless the hon. Member for Edinburgh withdrew his Amendment.

MR. COWAN

certainly intended to ad here to his Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to. That the item of £1,000, being the Salary of the Keeper of the General and Particular Registers of Sasines, be omitted from the proposed Vote.

MR. WHITE

Where are we?

MR. TITE

We cannot bear a word here. The Chairman is going at the rate of sixty miles an hour.

MR. WILSON

said, there was some confusion as to the last proposition put from the Chair, as he understood the Committee, had assented to the Amendment for the reduction of one item of£1,000. The effect of the reduction would be to impair, the efficiency of the office, which was one of great responsibility, for the holder was responsible for all the errors his clerks might commit. Not many years ago the holder of this office had to refund £3,000, in consequence of an error made by one of his clerks.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he must declare that hon. Members around him had challenged the Amendment in the usual way when the question was put, and they considered that they were going to a division. There had evidently been a great mistake.

MR. MILES

said he wished to know whether there was a Treasury Minute declaring the office to be a sinecure.

MR. WILSON

said, that he had given an explanation on the subject when the hon. Member for Somersetshire was absent. He would, however, repeat what he had before said on the subject. Two years ago the attention of the Treasury was called to the subject. The Queen's Remembrancer for Scotland declared that upon a vacancy there was no occasion to fill it up. A letter was thereupon written by the Treasury to the Home Office, suggesting that in the event of a vacancy it should not be filled up without consideration. When the vacancy occurred a correspondence took place between the Lord Advocate of Scotland and the Home Office, in which the Treasury had no share, but good grounds, as he understood, were given why the office should be continued in a modified shape.

MR. G. DUNDAS

said, he wished to know whether the hon. Member intended to convey the impression that the holder of this office bad not exercised sufficient surveillance over his clerks.

MR. WILSON

said, he had not intended to convey the impression that the loss had arisen in consequence of any defalcation on the part of one of the clerks. A mistake was made in a search which led to a considerable loss, for which a court of law held that the Keeper of the Registers was responsible.

MR. CUMMING BRUCE

remarked, that he had said "no" to the reduction of the Vote, and he was not at all aware that the Amendment was carried.

THE LORD ADVOCATE

said, that the Keeper of the Registers could not be expected to perform the duties of his office if he received no salary. If the salary were struck out the people of Scotland would have no one responsible next year for the accuracy of the register.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that as some misconception appeared to have taken place on this item he proposed to withdraw the Vote altogether for the present.

MR. LOCKHART

observed, that he knew that the late Mr. Pringle had considered the office of Keeper of the Register to be no sinecure. He did not believe that any defalcation had taken place in his time.

MR. WILSON

said, he had cast no imputation on any one. He did not know the time when the holder of the office was held responsible to the owner of the property in consequence of the mistake of a clerk. It was some time ago.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, he had never heard a question put more distinctly than the question of the omission of the item. There was great silence and unusual delay. It was therefore hardly fair for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say it was a mistake,

MR. BAXTER

said, he conceived the deprivation of salary would not affect the responsibility of the officer.

SIR DENHAM NORREYS

said, that as a point of order he objected to again discussing a matter already decided by a Vote of the Committee. He would therefore call upon the Chairman to say whether he had not decided the omission in the affirmative.

MR. CHAIRMAN

said, that decision had been arrived at by the Committee. The question now was whether it was their pleasure that the Vote should be withdrawn.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, it was customary for the Government to signify dissent when any item was challenged. He understood that it was through inadvertence that it was not done in this case. [Cries of "No!"] He was only repeating what he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say. Under these circumstances it was rather discourteous on the part of hon. Gentlemen who differed from the Government to prevent the Vote being withdrawn, that the subject might be reconsidered on a future occasion. It seemed to have been a mere accident that the omission of the item was not challenged. ["No!"] He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that it was a mere accident, and he did not sec why they should disbelieve that statement. It would be a somewhat unusual course to insist upon an advantage gained in that accidental manner.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

, said, he was not in his place when the question was put. He found the Committee in some confusion, and, on asking the cause, he was told that the Chairman had not heard the cry of "No." He had no other wish than to do that which was proper. Of course, there was no imputation on their able Chairman, but there was an error. The Committee had arrived at a conclusion which was challenged. Under those circumstances he thought the best way was to withdraw the Vote. There should never be a feeling on either side that in a Committee of Supply there was anything like sharp practice. There could be but one feeling on each side, that the money of the country should be voted for efficient services, and if there were any doubt as to the mode in which a decision had been arrived at it was by no means an unusual course to withdraw the Vote and reconsider it on a future opportunity. He was still of opinion that it was a proper course, and he should therefore move that the Vote be withdrawn.

MR. HORSMAN

said, their first feeling should be to support the regularity of their proceedings, and especially to support the Chairman, whose duty was discharged with great ability and propriety. When the Motion of omission was put there was an unusual pause, because the Chairman, like the rest of the Committee, was evidently surprised that no one on the Government side said "No." It was not inadvertence. It was indecision. He watched the Secretary for the Home Department and the Lord Advocate. He saw them turn round and confer with a neighbour. The fact was, they were taken by surprise. It was really indecision, and, although he should have no objection to withdraw the Vote, if it could be put on a proper footing, he appealed to the Committee whether they should allow it to be withdrawn upon the ground that there was something in the mode in which the Chairman put the question which had placed the Committee in embarrassment.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

begged to say, that he did challenge the omission in time. It was impossible to explain why his voice was not heard by the Chairman.

MR. HORSMAN

asked, whether the noble Lord, had not challenged after the Chairman said, "The Ayes have it."

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that he said "No" to the question, and repeated it a second time.

MR. G. A. HAMILTON

said, the blame ought to rest entirely with him, as it was his duty to make the challenge, and he intended to do so, but he supposed he said "No" at the wrong time. He was engaged at the moment speaking to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Whiteside). It was entirely inadvertence. There was no hesitation on his part in reference to the intention on the part of the Government to call for a division.

MR. WALPOLE

remarked, that it was of the first importance that they should support the decision of the Chairman, and he had the greatest pleasure in making that observation, because he never saw a Chairman who conducted business in Committee with greater fairness and impartiality. He was therefore perfectly willing, whatever misapprehension there might be, to trust entirely to the Chairman's judgment, and to say to that judgment they ought to bow. As far as the Government were personally concerned it was not a Vote in which they were interested, because the only objection he had heard taken was the appointment of a gentleman after an assurance had been given by the late Government that the office should not be filled up, and that appointment took place shortly before the resignation of the late Government. In defending the Vote he was not actuated by any personal motives whatever, for his personal feelings, if he had any, would rather lean to the other side. The substantial point to be ascertained was, whether the House was of opinion that there should be a head of this department at the salary of £1,000 a year. That could not now be ascertained, because the Committee had formally rejected the item, but the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the Committee an opportunity of reconsidering the question. By agreeing to postpone the Vote those who were against this item would not be placed at any disadvantage, and the Committee would thereby have the opportunity of giving a bonâ fide decision.

MR. COWAN

said, he had no objection to the postponement of the Vote if the Government would pledge themselves that only one officer—and one officer it had been shown was sufficient to do the work—should be appointed.

SIR DENHAM NORREYS

said, the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not meet the object which he had in view. The item of £1,000 had been struck out, aad if the Vote were now postponed the House would not be able at any other time to do more than consider the reduced Vote of £14,000. The best plan would be to agree to the reduced Vote, and on the Report to move the addition of this item of £1,000.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, in his opinion that the course suggested by the hon. Baronet was impracticable.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he agreed that the hon. Baronet's proposition was informal, and he would therefore suggest that the reduced Vote should now be passed, and that on the Report the Government should move that the Vote be recommitted, with a view of adding the omitted item.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the course suggested by the noble Viscount was perfectly consistent with the practice of Committees of Supply.

(23.) Question— That a sum, not exceeding £14,118 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Salaries and Expenses of the several Offices in Her Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh, to the 31st day of March, 1859,

put, and agreed to. The three following Votes were then agreed to.

(24.) £1,124, Commissary Clerk, Edinburgh.

(25.) £1,675, Accountant in Bankruptcy, Scotland.

(26.) £26,620, Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland.

(27.) £3,726, Officers of the Court of Chancery, Ireland.

SIR ERSKINE PERRY

expressed his opinion that it would be greatly for the public advantage if the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland were made permanent. There was no reason in the world why the office should be made a political office, as that of the Lord Chancellor in this country necessarily was.

Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes:—

(28.) £2,599, Court of Queen's Bench, Ireland.

(29.) £3,480, Court of Common Pleas, Ireland.

(30.) £3,975, Court of Exchequer, Ireland.

(31.) £200, Clerk of Taxing Officers for the Three Law Courts, Ireland.

(32.) £5,850, Registrars to the Judges, Ireland.

(33.) £2,348, Registration of Judgments, Ireland.

(34.) £9,546, Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Ireland.

(35.) £8,872, Court of Probate, Ireland.

(36.) £830, Revising Barristers, Dublin.

(37.) £267, Court of Errors, Ireland.

(38.) £1,600, Police Justices, Dublin.

(39.) £24,500, Divisional Police Courts, &c., Dublin.

(40.) £514,287, Constabulary Force, Ireland.

(41.) £2,583, Four Courts, Dublin.

(42.) £17,703, Inspection of Prisons.

(43.) £380,756, Prisons and Convict Establishments.

(44.) £140,023, County Gaols, &c.

(45.) £24,715, Transportation.

(46.) £225,968, Convict Establishments.

House resumed. Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.