Commons Sitting of 15 August 1860

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED.—For Cumberland (Western Division) v. General Sir Henry Wyndham, deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Local Government Act (1858) Amendment (No. 2).
2° Local Government Act (1858) Amendment (No. 2).

SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
House in Committee,
Mr. MASSEYin the Chair.
(1.) £23,559, Works and Public Buildings.
MR. AYRTONinquired what was the amount of money spent by the Commissioners in the course of the year requiring supervision at the expense of £30,000?
MR. COWPERsaid, he believed that the expenses connected with this department were exceedingly economical for the amount of work which was done. With regard to the works in hand, he proposed to take a Vote of £80,000 for the purchase of land in Bridge Street, out of which the legal expenses would have to be defrayed, and £15,000 was to be spent upon the site of the new Foreign Office. Some notion of the work performed by the solicitor and his clerks might be formed from the fact, that during the last six months fifteen purchases had been completed; there had been ten sales, fourteen contracts, five prosecutions, and ten Bills in Parliament. There was spent in the last year £523 in counsels' fees. The solicitor was not only employed by his (Mr. Cowper's) department for this sum of money, but he likewise acted on behalf of the Woods and Forests in that portion of the business which related to forests. He considered it was a very small sum of money for the amount of work thrown upon the solicitor.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought the charge on account of the solicitor and his clerks to be extravagant.
MR. WHITEpointed out that the question of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had not been answered. That question was, what was the aggregate amount of the expenditure, the supervision of which cost £30,000.
MR. COWPERreplied, that that could be ascertained by referring to the items in the Estimates, stating the expenditure for

1321
Public Buildings, Parks, Palaces, Probate Courts, Westminster Bridge approaches, and various other matters.
Vote agreed to, as were also.
(2.) £20,783, Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues.
(3.) £19,191, Public Records.
(4.) £222,969, Poor Laws Administration.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved, that there were 12 Inspectors, at salaries of £700 each, and with travelling expenses amounting to £8,172. He thought that the Poor Law Commission could now do very well without these Inspectors, and he suggested that it would be right to reduce the number by one-half, and also to reduce the travelling expenses by one-half.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSstated that, according to the Treasury Report presented to the House, the Inspectors were required to furnish accounts of their proceedings every week, and thus security was taken for the proper employment of their time, and against their absenting themselves from duty without notice to their superiors. Their duties were of a peculiar nature, requiring tact, discretion, and a certain amount of knowledge of the world. They were constantly applied to upon different points by the unions, and they were essential to the proper working of the Poor Law system. An inquiry into the whole matter, however, would take place in the next Session.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he should suppose that those officers must have the wordly knowledge to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, for with £8,000 a year for travelling expenses they might travel all over the world; but he objected to officers acquiring that worldly knowledge at such an expense to the public. However, as the whole subject was to be inquired into, it was hardly worth while to press at the present moment for a reduction of the Vote.
Vote agreed to.
The following Votes were also agreed to:—
(5.) £32,513, Mint.
(6.) £16,140, Factories, Mines, &c.
(7.) £6,234, Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer, &c. (Scotland).
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £0,431, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries for the Officers and Attendants of the House-
1322
hold of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained of the enormous expenses of the household of the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. He thought Ireland ought to be more proud of the Government of the Queen than of such sham royalty. If it produced the slightest benefit, credit, or honour to Ireland, he should not object, but it did not, in his opinion, produce either. He did not see the use of many of the officers whose salaries were included in the Vote. What was the use of a Master of the Horse? What were "Two Gentlemen at Large?" He thought the present efficient Chief Secretary for Ireland could perform all the duties required in connection with the office. He was surprised that hon. Gentlemen who represented Ireland did not feel themselves dishonoured by having any other Sovereign but the Queen.
MR. VANCEsaid, he thought the hon. Member's remarks would have been far more appropriate at the time the proposal for the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy was being discussed. The House had decided upon retaining the office, and there must be some expense to maintain its dignity. The expenditure now was less than it had been.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, it would be too bad, as his hon. Friend (Mr. Williams) suggested, to cast upon the Irish Secretary such duties as those of the "State porter of Dublin Castle," "sergeant of the riding-house," and "two singing men," more especially as by a Bill now before the House to sing a song in Ireland was declared, under certain circumstances, to be a misdemeanour, as being calculated to provoke ill-will and animosity, and was pu-r. limbic with six months' imprisonment. Among the other items he noticed a "Cork Herald," who cost for salary £12 17 s. 4d., and for clothing £18 9s. 2d.; an Athlone Pursuivant, a kettle-drummer, and three State trumpeters. What could be the reason for keeping up such miserable wretched nonsense? What the "two Gentlemen at Large" meant he could not tell. Perhaps they were two large gentlemen. Perhaps they were merely gentlemen let out of custody. Such items required explanation, but the maintenance of this ridiculous semblance of Royalty was in every way absurd.
MR. LONGFIELDsaid, "the Gentlemen in Waiting" only cost £184 12 s. 8d. This was a very small amount when they re-

1323
membered how many hundreds of thousands were spent in satisfying gentlemen "in. waiting" in this country. He always observed that the desire for economy was strongest in the case of any Irish expenditure.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would propose the reduction of the Vote by £1,574 6s. 2d., being the amount given for fifteen Queen's plates to be run for in Ireland. He did not think the House ought to vote money for the encouragement of horse-racing.
Motion made and Question proposed,
"That the item of £1,574 6s. 2d., for fifteen Queen's Plates to be run for in Ireland, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
CAPTAIN STACPOOLEsupported the item, believing that these plates tended greatly to improve the breed of horses.
MR. CARDWELLobserved that as money was voted for Queen's, plates in England and Scotland it would be hardly fair to strike out this item.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYremarked, that as gentlemen who bred horses did so for their own profit Parliament could not be called on legitimately to assist them.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, that in England people put their hands into the public till much more than in Ireland, not that the Irish had not the will to do the same—they only wanted the power to do so. Many of the items referred to were certainly supremely ridiculous, and could only be justified by their antiquity. The "Cork Herald," for example, was not connected with the county of that name, and his duties therefore must consist in cork-drawing. He complained that the Irish Secretary was a mere automaton in the hands of the compact family party in Dublin Castle, and that the Irish Members had no influence with him at all. It was not to be expected, however, that Irish Members should vote against the Vice-Royalty, they might as well be expected to vote against the Galway contract. The subject must be brought forward by the English Members, but in taking away the Vice-Royalty they must not fail to give to Ireland a substantial quid pro quo.
MR. CARD WELLsaid, the Committee would be glad to hear that the "Cork Herald," and other kindred officials, were already doomed, and Parliament was only now called on to provide for vested interests.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(9.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £16,084, be grant, ed to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEcalled attention to the case of the salary of the Under Secretary, who, as a military officer, was mulcted of his half-pay while he held office. This principle ran through all public offices, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) had his half-pay stopped from the moment he took office till he resigned it again. He thought that was a most shabby arrangement, and he hoped the Government would put an end to it.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Vote was the same as last year. The case of half-pay officers had better be considered as to its general principle rather than in the particular case of the Under Secretary.
MR. W. WILLIAMScalled attention to the fact that 350 tons of coal were used in the Chief Secretary's office and 300 tons in the Under Secretary's. This expenditure he thought was most extravagant, and he proposed to reduce these Votes to the extent of £600, which would give each of the offices about 60 tons a year each.
Motion made, and Question,
"That the item of £425, for allowance for Fuel to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, be reduced by the amount of £300."
Put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed,
Whereupon Motion made, and Question,
"That the item of £2,488 5s., for the Salaries and Allowances, &c, to the Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, be reduced by the amount of £300 "
Put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £5,004, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of the Department of the Paymaster of Civil Services in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
MR. CARDWELLexplained that the items included the maintenance of two public establishments in the Phoenix Park, and that the arrangement, which had some time ago been effected, was considered an economical one. Moreover, the whole ex-

1325
penditure was about to be revised next year. Under these circumstances he doubted if it were wise to go into the question at that time.
COLONEL FRENCHreminded the House that the expense of the Chief Secretary's office had been reduced from £5,500 to £4,000. He hoped the Committee would not grudge Ireland taking this money, as they had no other means of giving their English Secretary a warm reception.
MR. VANCErequired some information respecting the office and the duties.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the subject was under the consideration of the Treasury, and he believed it was not intended to fill up the vacancy which existed, but no fixed arrangement had yet been made.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, ho could not understand why the office had ever been created, except for the purpose of patronage.
MR. ROEBUCKobserved, that it would quicken the movement of the Government in coming to a decision if the Committee would resolve that there should be no pay for the office. He did not care to trust any Government with money at discretion; for money voted was money gone.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had been in communication with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose view tended towards the extinction of the office, a view in which he (Mr. Card well) was disposed to concur; but it was a proper question for the Treasury to consider whether the necessary duties could be discharged without such an office.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYmoved that the Vote of £1,000 for this officer be postponed for this year.
MR. LAINGobserved, that it would not be wise to postpone the Vote, as, though the Government meditated its abolition, it was connected with the larger question of the Audit Office in Ireland.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Vote could not be postponed. The only course was to reduce the Vote by this item altogether. He could promise, on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he would not appoint to the office merely because the salary was voted, but the Government had no objection to give up the Vote.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question, "That the item of £1,000, for the Paymaster of Civil Services in Ireland, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
Put, and agreed to.
(10.) Resolved,
"That a sum not exceeding £4,004, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of the Department of the Paymaster of Civil Services in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1801."
The following Votes were then agreed to:—
(11.) £2,021, Lunatic Asylums (Ireland).
(12.) £18,661, Board of Public Works (Ireland).
(13.) £33,118, Audit Office.
(14.) £17, Copyhold Inclosure and Tithe Commission.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwished to know when this Commission was likely to terminate. The Tithe Commission was promised to be abolished long ago; and as for Inclosure Commissioners, their services ought to be paid by those who employed them.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Tithe Commission had been merged some time since in the Inclosure Commission, which was very useful to the public in obtaining the inclosure of waste lands without expense.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he could not see why three Commissioners were required, a resident Assistant Commissioner having been added since last year.
MR. LAINGsaid, although an Assistant Commissioner had been added, the office of Board Clerk had been abolished.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes:—
(15.) £12,790, Copyhold Inclosure and Tithe Commission (Expenses under Inclosure Drainage Acts).
(16.) £36,400, General Register Office.
(17.) £3,301, General Register Office (Dublin).
(18.)£5,812, Registrar General of Births, &c. (Scotland).
(19.) £10,652, National Debt Office.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished for some explanation of the advantages of this Department.
MR. VANCEsaid, he wanted to know what were the "contingencies," for which £600 was asked.
MR. RIDLEYobserved that in another part of the Estimates £1,000 was taken for rent of offices for the National Debt Department. That was an item of cost, and therefore the Vote now before the Committee did not really show the whole expense of that office.
MR. LAINGsaid, a Committee would probably be appointed next year to inquire

1327
into the Miscellaneous Expenditure, and the point referred to by the hon. Member would, doubtless, engage their attention. In the meantime, it had not been thought advisable to make any change in the form of the Estimates.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that he did not perceive any impropriety in the present arrangement of the Vote. Why should rent paid for one office be reckoned as an item of expense, when other offices which paid no rent were not debited with that item?
MR. W. WILLIAMSobserved that there was reason to complain of the present arrangements, for there was not a single public officer whose total expense was included in one Vote.
MR. AYRTONreferred to items charged upon the Consolidated Fund which were not brought under the consideration of the Committee, and thought greater opportunity should be afforded to Parliament for ascertaining the total cost of each particular officer.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes:—
(20.) £2,100, Public Works Loan Commissioners.
(21.) £920, West India Islands Relief Commissioners.
(22.) £6,166, Commissioners in Lunacy.
MR. NORRISdrew attention to the item for travelling expenses in Scotland, £1,500, which appeared to him to be an extremely large amount.
SIR GEORGE LEWISexplained that there were two Commissioners and two Deputy Commissioners in Scotland, and that their most important duty consisted in visiting different asylums spread throughout the country.
COLONEL DUNNEobserved that the allowance for travelling expenses in Ireland was only £480.
MR. W. WILLIAMSreferred to a Vote in the Estimates which stated that£12,783 for the salaries and the other expenses of the Lunacy Commission in England was charged upon the Consolidated Fund, and observed that he thought that was an instance of the evil to which the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ridley) had called attention.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes:—
(23.) £923, Superintendent of County Roads (South Wales).
(24.) £1,653, Registrars of Friendly Societies.
(25.) £24,000, Secret Services.
(26.) £255,285, Stationery, Printing, and Binding.
(27.) £128,628 Postage (Public Service.)
SIR GEORGE BOWYERinquired whether the money voted went immediately to the Post Office, or whether it was paid to the various departments to reimburse them for outlay previously made on account of postage? He would take that opportunity of asking when it was intended to fill up the office of Postmaster-General, and when the report of the Post Office Commissioners would be laid before Parliament? About a month ago he had asked similar questions, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government said it was intended to fill up the office of Postmaster General, hut that the Report of the Commissioners could not be presented until such appointment had been made. Neither event had occurred.
THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Baronet that the Vote before the Committee was for postages, and not the filling up of the vacant office of Postmaster-General.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he objected to vote the money until he knew something about the Postmaster-General, and he should divide the Committee unless he received a satisfactory answer. He did not wish to make insinuations nor to place too much reliance upon public rumour, but it was generally stated that the office of Postmaster-General was not to be filled up until after the prorogation of Parliament, and that the object of such delay was—to use a vulgar but expressive phrase—to "job" it. That suspicion might or might not be true, but he thought the Committee was entitled to ask for some information from the Government as to their intentions, and thus afford hon. Members an opportunity of expressing their opinion of the fitness of the person appointed to the office. Then, as to the Report of the Commissioners, he had been told that that Report was satisfactory, that a redress of grievances was recommended, and that the disastrous position of the Post Office had been usefully considered. Hon. Gentlemen were not probably aware that for some time the General Post Office had been almost in a state of insurrection on account of the grievances of the men, who were kept at work for fourteen or sixteen hours without intermission, and who consequently were unable from over-fatigue satisfactorily to discharge the duties re-

1329
quired of them, to the injury of the public service. The object of the Post Office authorities seemed to be to regard the transmission of correspondence solely as a source of revenue, and, therefore, to increase the profits derivable from that source, they diminished the amount of working force and reduced the salaries of those whom they employed. Nothing could remedy such a state of things but the appointment of a really efficient Postmaster General, and in his opinion the office should be a permanent one. When a new Administration was formed it was usual to appoint some person of high rank to this office whom the Prime Minister did not know what to do with. The consequence was the prevalence of those evils to which he had referred. He would next Session move the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the whole subject of the Post Office; but in the meantime it was of importance that Parliament should have before it the Report of the Commissioners. If that Report were not laid before the House at an early day ho would certainly make its production the subject of a distinct Motion. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to fill up the office of Postmaster General, and, if so, when; and also when it was intended to lay the Report of the Commissioners on the table of the House?
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, it had been stated in "another place" that the office of Postmaster General was filled by the Duke of Argyll, who also held the office of Lord Privy Seal, but that he would not hold the two offices long. He wished to know whether it was the office of Postmaster General that was to be filled up, or that of Lord Privy Seal?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the noble Lord at the head of the Government, as he understood from him after the debate that took place yesterday morning, intended to lose no time in filling up the office of Postmaster General. The Report of the Commission on the Post Office was under the consideration of the Duke of Argyll, who was now discharging temporarily the duties of the Post Office, and he hoped to be able to lay that Report, with the decision of the Government upon it, on the table of both Houses of Parliament before the end of the Session.
COLONEL DUNNEcomplained that no account of the Post Office receipts and expenditure for Ireland was included in the Returns laid on the table.
MR. HENNESSYobserved, that certain Returns connected with the Irish Post Offices which were laid on the table in July, had not been printed.
MR. LAINGpromised to make inquiries on the subject.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he wished a more specific answer to one of his questions. The Secretary for the Home Department said the Duke of Argyll hoped to be able to lay the Commissioners' Report on the table before Parliament was prorogued. What did he mean by "hoped?" The Report had been in the hands of the Government for a month, and why should it not be laid before Parliament immediately?
SIR GEORGE LEWISprotested against the irregularity of this discussion on a mere formal Vote for a department of the Post Office. The answer he had given he would repeat. The Duke of Argyll had the Report under his consideration, and he hoped to be able to lay it on the table, together with the decision of the Government upon it—that decision not having been finally given—before the end of the Session.
Vote agreed to; as also was
(28.) £24,245, Law Charges.
(29.) £100,000, Prosecutions at Assizes and Quarter Sessions.
MR. CHILDERSasked the Home Secretary whether he had come to any conclusion as to the removal of the assizes for the West Riding of Yorkshire?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it did not appear that there was any general desire on the part of the West Riding that any change should be made; nor did it appear that it would be attended with any signal advantage. Under these circumstances, he had not come to any decision differing from the recommendation of the last Commission which investigated the subject.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was glad to hear that statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Childers) believed the majority of the people of the West Riding were strongly in favour of the maintenance of holding the assizes as at present.
MR. EDWIN JAMEScalled the attention of the Committee to the state of the Courts of Justice at Guildford. The condition of those courts was a positive disgrace to the administration of justice. One of them he could hardly call a court; it was a mere passage, at one end of which sat the Judge; it was open to the street, and from the noise it was next to impossi-

1331
ble to hear either the Judge, the witnesses, or the counsel. The unfortunate scene that occurred in that court the other day, and on which ho would express no opinion whatever, was closely connected with the condition of the building. The other court in which the Chief Justice sat he hardly knew how to describe. It was utterly unfit for a court of justice, and was exposed to constant draughts of air from all sides. He must say he could not help being surprised at the excellent health of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Briscoe), considering that he was doomed to sit as a magistrate in one of these courts. He really hoped the matter would receive the serious attention of the Government, as it was one intimately connected with the right administration of justice.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he presumed it was in the power of the Crown to decide in what town the assizes should be held. Now it so happened that there were good courts in Kingston and in Croydon, and he thought the Surrey assizes might with advantage be removed from Guildford to one of those towns until proper accommodation was afforded in the former place.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the duty of providing proper buildings for the administration of justice during the assizes belonged to the county magistrates who administered the county rate, and no power resided in the Crown for that purpose. He did not remember to have received any memorial with respect to the courts at Guildford, but if a memorial were presented to him he would take care that it received due attention. All he could do, however, would be to represent the state of matters to the county magistrates. With reference to what had recently taken place at Guildford he would say that, however much he might lament any collision between the Sheriff of the county and the Judges holding the assizes, yet, so far as his information extended, he had no reason to doubt that Her Majesty's Judges had exorcised a proper discretion in the matter.
COLONEL, FRENCHsaid, he hoped the Committee would receive some information as to the power of the Judges, as it appeared to him that the blame was not altogether to be imputed to the High Sheriff. Was there ever, before the recent scene at Guildford, such an occurrence in a court of justice as a Judge committing an assault on a High Sheriff? It appeared, too, that one of the Judges at Guildford had ordered
1332
a portion of the court to be cleared. The High Sheriff declared he had no power to do so, and he believed no lawyer would go the length of saying that he had. He thought some intimation should be given to the Judges to conduct themselves with more propriety.
SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved that it was exceedingly inconvenient on a mere Vote in Supply to enter into a debate on the events which had recently taken place at Guildford. He had expressed an opinion on the subject solely in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone; and if any hon. Gentleman in the House thought it desirable to make a specific Motion on the subject he would be prepared to support with facts and reasons the opinion he had given.
MR. EDWIN JAMESremarked that he had cautiously abstained from giving an opinion with reference to the recent occurrences at Guildford, and had merely alluded to the subject as being intimately connected with the unsatisfactory state of the courts there. As reference had been made to the Judges, he wished to state that the Lord Chief Justice was not sitting in the court in which the occurrences referred to occurred, and ho only interposed when reference was made to him. No one who knew the Lord Chief Justice would for a moment suppose that he could be wanting in courtesy to any person, whether official or otherwise, who might approach him. His belief was that in a proper court such a scene as had lately taken place would never have occurred.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHexpressed his belief that the High Sheriff's ought to be relieved from the expenses and the inconvenience to which they were still subjected.
MR. SPOONERremarked that witnesses in criminal prosecutions ought to receive more liberal allowances than those which were at present granted to them. The existing arrangement upon that subject seriously interfered with the administration of justice.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that his attention had been a good deal called to that matter, but he had not been able to devise any general revision of the fees to witnesses.
MR. BRADYsaid, he thought that the real remedy in that case was to place prosecutions under the management of a public prosecutor.
MR. HENLEYobserved that he wished to say a word on the subject, because it was at present in a most unsatisfactory condition. The Judge or Chairman of Quarter Sessions made an order for payment of expenses, and the treasurer of the county had to pay them, when there was no certainty as to what portion would be reimbursed, the Treasury reserving to themselves the power of cutting down the expenses in a most arbitrary manner. All parties were placed in a most difficult position, and the result was the impeding of justice. They would find by-and-bye that the counties would not pay the money if it was not to be allowed afterwards.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
(30.) £223,475, Police in Counties and Boroughs, &c.
(31.) £1,220, Crown Office, Queen's Bench.
(32.) £7,675, Admiralty Court (Dublin).
MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained of the high charge for the salaries of officers in the Admiralty Court.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that there was a set-off of £6,000 received from the Admiralty Court in the shape of stamps.
Vote agreed to.
(33.) £5,976, Insolvent Debtors' Court.
MR. VANCEasked if, supposing any vacancies occurred in the Bankruptcy or Insolvent Commissioners, the offices would be filled up?
SIR GEORGE LEWISreplied, that if they were it would be on the understanding that the appointment would be temporary, and that compensation would not be allowed.
Vote agreed to.
(34.) £26,280, Court of Probate and Divorce.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the reform of the ecclesiastical courts had been rather costly to the country. There was for this court, including compensations, a total charge of £188,000; and, deducting from this £62,000 received from fees, there was a deficiency against the court of £126,000 a year. When the Act passed the clear understanding was—and it was so provided for in the Act—that those receiving compensation should be appointed to new offices as they occurred. Now, a great many district registrars had been appointed, some of them with emoluments of £2,000 and £2,600 a year, and persons receiving compensation ought to have been put into these places. Many of those
1334
gentlemen were persons of good business habits, and well able to discharge any duties that might be required of them, but instead of them, except in a few instances, persons who had been in the army or who had not been brought up to any habits of business were put into the new or vacant offices. They were bound to employ those men who were receiving large sums in the way of compensation, but the connections of the Ministry and others were in most cases preferred before them. He complained of this as a breach of the statute, and of the full understanding come to when the Divorce Court was established.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was not ashamed of having taken part in the reform of the ecclesiastical courts. A great public benefit was thus conferred upon the country; but it was, nevertheless, true that the advantage was produced at a heavy price. Large compensation was given, but it was done deliberately by the House. The amount originally proposed by the Government was considerably augmented, and a very large proportion of the whole, namely, compensation to the proctors, was absolutely forced on the Government by the pressure of the House. He had no knowledge of the appointment of the district registrars to which the hon. Gentleman referred, as they were not appointed by the Government, but by the Judge of the court. Therefore no blame attached to Government for these appointments. This was the first time he had heard that the Government were bound to employ persons receiving compensation in new offices, and he was not aware that there was any clause in the Act which required those persons to surrender their compensation in the event of their being appointed to offices under the Crown. It was unusual, at all events, for persons in the position of proctors to surrender their superannuation allowances on appointment to offices of another kind, nor did he think that many of these persons were suited to general employment under the Crown.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir James Graham), foreseeing the necessity for reforms in the Court of Probate, obtained an Act to be passed twenty years ago, declaring that all persons appointed subsequently to the passing of that Act should hold their offices subject to any change that might be made, and should not be entitled to any compensation. The Government of the day, however, rescinded that Act, and granted com-

1335
pensation, and, having been guilty of that gross extravagance, it was not possible to resist the claims of other persons. The Government were, therefore, greatly to blame for having drawn the House into this extravagance. The Probate Act in the following clause expressly stipulated that persons receiving compensation should be liable to fill offices, &c.:—
"That every person to whom any compensation shall be granted under this Act shall at all times, when called upon, be liable to fill any public office or situation in England under the Crown for which his previous services in any office abolished by this Act may render him eligible."
[Sir GEORGE LEWIS: That clause does not apply to proctors.] He held that a proctor was an officer of the court, and came as such within the provision of the Act. The clause went on to say—
"And that if he shall decline when called upon so to do to take upon himself such office or situation, and execute the duties thereof satisfactorily, being in a competent state of health, he shall forfeit his right to any compensation or allowances which may have been granted to him in respect of such previous services."
It was the duty of the Government when offices in the court were vacant, to exert themselves to get those persons appointed, so that the burden of compensation might be diminished.
MR. MELLORsaid, he distinctly remembered that these compensations were forced upon the Government. The greatest efforts were made by the parties to obtain compensation, and it was hopeless for the Government to expect to pass the Bill unless they had consented to the insertion of these clauses. He held that the House had gone to riot in granting extravagant compensations under Bills of law reform. One of the most monstrous things he ever knew was the compensation granted to clerks of the peace upon some change being made in the administration of justice. Other demands followed, because the parties could show they had a better claim than the clerks of the peace. The House really bought legal reform at a price that made it scarcely worth having, in consequence of the scale on which compensation was granted.
MR. MALINSsaid, he must deny that the compensation clauses were forced on the House. It was simply an act of justice, and if the Bill were before them again, he would endeavour to obtain compensation for the proctors. The Government themselves introduced clauses to that effect in the previous Bills, and he was at a loss
1336
to know why they were omitted in the Bill that was last introduced. Those clauses were passed without a division, which showed that it was the general opinion of the House that the proctors ought to be compensated. He denied that the compensation was exorbitant, none of the proctors having more than half the amount of his income for the average of the preceding six years. At the same time he believed that the Bill did not work at all well, or even cheaper than the old courts, and the money it had cost was entirely thrown away; for he had never heard any one, either in the profession or out of it, state that it had been productive of more benefit than could have been produced by reforming the Ecclesiastical Courts.
MR. BRADYsaid, he thought the compensation of proctors was unjustifiable altogether, because it was a professional and not an official occupation. The passing of the Bill as it stood proved only that the House was overruled by lawyers.
MR. MALINSsaid, that it would have been much better if the hon. Member had divided the House at the time.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he thought that an enormous and flagitious sum had been awarded for compensation under the Act. Out of the vast sums awarded for compensation a large and elegant statue ought to have been erected to the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford by the parties to whom the compensation was awarded. He begged to assure the hon. Member (Mr. Brady) that lawyers were as sincere legal reformers as any hon. Gentleman in that House who represented physic or anything else. He could not understand how compensation clauses could be forced upon any Government, and, therefore, the Government must take its share of the responsibility of having conceded these claims. No doubt, a great deal of external pressure was brought to bear upon hon. Members and upon the Government. He was not then a Member of the House, but he remembered seeing his hon. and learned Friend surrounded in the lobby by proctors, doctors of law, and registrars, like a sugar cask in summer with the flies round it. The Probate Court had got into the hands of the Harcourts, the Jenners, and the Fusts, and there were indeed so many advocates of the same family that a Jeu de mot was current—" Fust come Fust served." He felt certain that if a suggestion was made to the learned Judge who presided in the Court of Pro-

1337
bate he would appoint to vacant offices in the court those who were receiving compensation, whereby the amount now payable might be reduced.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, that the result of the Bill had been to saddle the persons administering to wills, &c, with heavy fees, because the compensation was not paid out of the Consolidated Fund, but out of the fees of suitors. It was understood at the time of the passing of the Bill that the fees of registrars would be ascertained and their salaries revized. There was scarcely one of those offices of which the salaries onght not to be reduced. The salary of the Registrar of Wakefield, for instance, amounted to nearly £4,000 a year, or about as much as that of the Judge of the Probate Court. In the case of the late Registrar of Chester the compensation was so large, £3,300, that the Registrar wrote to the Bishop of Chester, stating that it was actually more than he should have voted to himself, and he therefore, felt bound to devote one-third of it, £1,100, to the relief of the spiritual wants of the diocese. He thought that many of those gentlemen who had been pensioned might render efficient service to the public in other positions. He wished to know whether the sums now charged for probates and administrations were to be continued, or whether they were to be reduced. Seeing that probate administrations yielded more than £3,000,000 annually, he thought the public had a right to protest against excessive compensation.
MR. MALINSsaid, he believed there was a general understanding that the offices of Registrars, sub-registrars, &c, in the Court of Probate were to be filled by those whose offices were abolished. He had no connection with the gentlemen alluded to by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. E. James), except as a Member of Parliament. He had no personal knowledge of them, and had no visiting acquaintance with any proctor compensated or not compensated. He believed that the great bulk of them would be glad to exchange their compensation for more active employment.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, there was a Bill before Parliament providing for the maintenance of an officer styled Her Majesty's Proctor, whose office would be to fee counsel,—he wished to know whether the salary of that officer was to be derived from fees?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would answer that question when the Bill came under discussion.
MR. LAINGstated, that it was intended to place the district registrars upon salaries, and to collect the fees. The appointment of the registrars, district registrars, and other officers of the court was by the Act vested in the Judge of the Probate Court.
MR. AYRTONremarked, that if the Judge did not appoint persons now receiving compensation when vacancies occurred the Act ought to be amended.
Vote agreed to.
(35.) £145,275, County Courts.
MR. EDWIN JAMESwished to know how the item of £50,000 for rents of court-houses and offices arose. There was also a further item of £42,000, for building and repairing court-houses, which made a total of £92,000 for the buildings in which the County Court Judges sat.
MR. LAINGsaid, that whenever the town or county hall was fit for the purpose the County Court was held there, and that the Treasury kept a very tight hand on the expenditure incurred in providing accommodation for these courts.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to know who were the official personages who were responsible for the building works being properly executed.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was anxious to be informed what was the whole amount of the cost of these courts paid out of the public money, and also what was the amount paid through them into the Exchequer.
MR. CLIVEsaid, that since the fees in the County Court had, as he thought, been unwisely reduced, they had proved insufficient to provide the requisite courts, and the country had to pay the difference. Even where town halls had been found applicable for the purposes of these courts, many changes for better accommodation were found necessary. These questions were brought under the supervision of the Home Department, which acted upon the recommendations of their surveyors.
MR. AYRTONobserved that, after giving credit for all the fees, the County Courts cost the country no less than £287,500. A most objectionable practice had sprung from the system. Hawkers went about the country enticing the poorer classes to buy goods on credit, and then by means of the County Courts got their debts collected almost at the

1339
public expense, the unfortunate debtors being subjected, when they could not pay, to an imprisonment which partook of a penal character. He hoped the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would consider the subject with the view of seeing whether a practice so hurtful to the working classes could not be checked by limiting the facilities for the recovery of debts which these Courts offered to hawkers.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, the system required a careful reconsideration of the Government. The Assistant Barristers' Courts in Ireland had worked very well, but the annual outlay upon them was only £20,000 a year, while the barristers had to deal with questions involving not only common law and equity, but also bankruptcy. He did not see why it was requisite to incur such a large expenditure for treasurers, nor could he see the necessity for such an office.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, what ho wanted to know was the total cost of the courts, and the amount returned in the shape of fees.
MR. LAINGobserved that the whole expense incurred for the County-court system amounted to £418,000, of which £218,000 came back in fees.
Vote agreed to; as was also
(36.) £15,437, Police Courts.
(37.) £106,860, Metropolitan Police.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he wished to draw attention to the fact that, while by the statute the salary of the Chief Commissioner of Police was fixed at a maximum of £1,500, that officer received over and above that sum £300 a year for house-rent, and £63 for a horse. He also wished to observe that he had received information of a great many abuses which prevailed in the Metropolitan Police force, and, unless some Metropolitan Member next Session took up the subject, and moved for a Committee of Inquiry, he would certainly do so. The returns which had been furnished at his request in regard to several complaints that had reached his ears were, he believed, defective and inaccurate. One of the chief complaints which had been made to him was that persons were promoted to be inspectors and superintendents, without undergoing any examination whatever, who were unfit for such situations. No doubt, there were among these officers many men of great capacity; and, as a body, the force stood high in point of respectability and
1340
efficiency. But he believed that men were frequently appointed, through mere favouritism, to high offices who were not qualified to hold them. He thought that no one should be appointed to an office of such responsibility as inspector or superintendent without undergoing a thorough examination. The recent investigation with regard to the Road murder afforded striking proof of the unfitness of some of the present officers. An inspector named Whicher was sent down to inquire into the matter. Upon the slightest possible grounds, merely because one of her nightgowns happened to be missing, that officer arrested a young lady who lived in the house where the murder was committed, and assured the magistrates that he would be prepared in a few days to produce evidence which would bring home the murder to her.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would put it to the Committee whether they thought it desirable that on a Vote of this nature remarks should be made on the conduct, in a case of a very delicate kind under investigation, of an officer of the London police who was sent down at the request of the local authorities. It was equally difficult for him to remain silent, when such remarks were made, and to give a full explanation of the circumstances. He had, of course, been apprized of all the facts relating to the case, but did not think he should be justified in disclosing them to the Committee. He would only put it to the hon. Baronet whether he thought it consistent with the ordinary course pursued in the House to follow up the line of remark he had adopted.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he had no intention of making any specific statement as to this particular case. He believed the constitutional course was that the statement of grievances of this kind should be made on voting Supplies. He thought he had a right to refer to what took place at a public investigation as a proof of the incapacity of some of the officers of police. He held that the inspector in question had acted in a most objectionable manner. After all his boasting of the evidence he could produce, the young lady was discharged by the magistrates, and he believed there was not the slightest doubt that she was innocent of the charge. He would not go into the matter further. He referred to the case merely as an illustration of the import-

1341
ance of appointing men of undoubted fitness to situations which gave them power over the liberty and even over the lives of their fellow-subjects.
LORD FERMOYsaid, if he had come to the same conclusion as the hon. Baronet as to the mode in which men were selected for promotion in the Metropolitan Police, he would be ready to bring the matter before Parliament next Session. He did not think that an examination system would lead to any improvement. A man might be very skilful in checking crime and catching thieves, and yet but a poor hand at writing a letter. The choice of men for promotion must be left to those who were at the head of the force, and who had the best means of coming to a proper decision. If it could be shown that men were passed over because they belonged to a particular nation or a particular religion, then there would be a very good case for inquiry. He had received communications on the subject as well as his hon. Friend, but had not been convinced that men were neglected either because they were Irishmen or Roman Catholics. He saw no reason for withholding his confidence in the gentleman who now commanded the Metropolitan Police. As far as he could see, it was well managed. He thought the privates in that force, as well as in the Irish constabulary, were very badly paid. In both cases they were a very excellent body of men; but prices had risen since the rate of their salaries was fixed, and therefore they were now underpaid. That was a point the Government should look to, as they ought to be placed above those temptations to which they were necessarily subject.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he could bear testimony, from his knowledge of the Metropolitan Police, to the respectability, efficiency, and courage of the force in the discharge of their very difficult and dangerous functions. They were certainly somewhat underpaid. No one could be better fitted for his office than the present First Commissioner, who upon all occasions discharged his duties with energy, discretion, and success.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERexplained that he did not make a general attack on the police. On the contrary, he owned they were a very efficient and respectable body of men. He thought there were abuses in the system, and the insufficiency of the pay was one of these. As a whole, also, the force was badly officered.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that those who remembered the very strong prejudice which prevailed against the Metropolitan Police when first established, in 1829, and who were aware of the feeling which now existed, not merely among the higher ranks of society, but generally among all classes in the Metropolis, must admit that, on the whole, the force had discharged its duty with remarkable success. He maintained that Commissioners, officers, and privates were a remarkably efficient and respectable body of men. Whereas on the Continent the name of the police was justly odious in the eyes of the people, everybody in the Metropolis—and he believed it was the same in regard to the county police—looked to the policeman for protection, assistance, and even advice on occasion. Of course, nothing in this world was perfect, and the police formed no exception to the rule. But it was not good service to render to the public to seek to throw general discredit on the Metropolitan Police, which was the effect, if not the object—[Sir GUOEOE BOWYER: Not the object.]—of the hon. Baronet's remarks. One of the abuses of the force, the hon. Baronet said, was their insufficient pay. He would not say that they were underpaid, but he would certainly say that they were not overpaid. It was quite a new idea, however, that it was an abuse in a body of men that they were underpaid, and it was one which the police themselves would, no doubt, be very glad to see removed. As far as his own knowledge and experience went, the assertion of the hon. Baronet that the officers of the force were generally unfit for their situations was wholly unfounded. The officers of the Metropolitan Police were a body of remarkably efficient, prudent, and well-conducted persons. As to the suggested examination of the constables by the Civil Service Commissioners in order to test their literary capacity, while ho thought the objections which had been made by some hon. Members to the system of examination exaggerated, on the other hand it appeared to him to be carrying the enthusiasm in favour of that system to a most extravagant extent to propose that the officers of police should be subjected to it. He did not believe that it would lead to better appointments than were made at present. He would not go into the details of the Road case, to which reference had been made. He asserted, however, in the most confident way, that no grounds existed for imputing any misconduct to the inspector

1343
who went down on that occasion. There were circumstances with regard to the young lady whom he brought before the magistrates which, in a case of peculiar mystery and horror, justified him in asking the magistrates to pronounce upon the question. He took it upon himself to say, from a knowledge of the facts of the case, that the officer was justified in the course he adopted. He trusted with that explanation the Committee would agree to the Vote.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that if the hon. Baronet wished to have an inquiry into the conduct of the Metropolitan Police he would have to undertake the duty himself, as he was certain no Metropolitan Member would bring forward such a Motion. They were a most respectable and efficient body of men. The public were satisfied with them. They were themselves content with the wages they received, and he believed they were as well paid as any class of the community in the same condition of life.
LORD FERMOYsaid, the men in the City of London police had 2s. a week more wages than the men in the Metropolitan Police. The result both in the Metropolis and in Ireland of not paying the police well was that the best Members of the force left it and obtained situations elsewhere.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYprotested against the statement that the police were inadequately paid. There were more applications than vacancies. Every one agreed that the men who now entered the force performed their duties admirably, and it would be time enough to seek another and superior class when any com-. plaints could be justly urged against them.
Vote agreed to.
(38.) £2,600 Queen's Prison.
(39.) £2,342, Lord Advocate and Solicitor General (Scotland).
(40.) £13,591, Court of Session (Scotland).
(41.) £8,066, Court of Justiciary (Scotland).
(42.) £5,500, Criminal Prosecutions (Scotland).
(43.) £1,120, Exchequer (Scotland).
(44.) £43,000, Sheriffs, &c. (Scotland).
(45.) £19,535, Procurators Fiscal (Scotland).
(46.) £15,260, Sheriffs Clerks (Scotland).
(47.) £2,150, Tithes, &c. (Scotland).
(48.) £12,815, General Register House (Edinburgh).
(49.) £744, Commissary Clerk (Edinburgh).
(50.) £1,128, Accountant in Bankruptcy (Scotland).
(51.) £64,634, Law Charges (Ireland).
(52.) £2,900, Court of Chancery (Ireland).
(53.) £2,750, Court of Queen's Bench (Ireland).
(54.) £2,431, Court of Common Pleas (Ireland).
(55). £12,460, Court of Exchequer (Ireland).
(56.) £200, Taxing Officers, Law Courts (Ireland).
(57.) £5,632, Registrars to Judges, &c. (Ireland).
(58.) £6,000, Manor Courts (Ireland).
(59.) £2,078, Registration of Judgments (Ireland).
(60.) £7,692, Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ireland).
(61.) £5,580, Court of Probate (Ireland).
(62.) £11,351, Landed Estates Court (Ireland.)
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHstated, that only six petitions had been presented for a judicial declaration of title, and none of these had been carried to completion. People were deterred by the enormous amount of fees payable to the Court. Upon an estate of the value of £100,000 £5,000 would have to be paid in hard cash to the Court, independent of the law costs of the petitioner.
MR. CARDWELLsaid the fees were fixed by the Act, and the Home Office had no power to interfere.
MR. MALINSsaid, he was a practical law reformer, but he did not admit that everything called law reform had a claim to the name. A year or two ago a great flourish was made of the advantage of judicial declarations of title, and now the hon. Member for Devizes had stated the result. The hon. and learned Attorney General had encumbered the Paper for the whole Session with the Landed Estates Bill, the principle of which was registration and declaration of title. He hoped the Attorney General for Ireland would communicate to the Attorney General for England the total failure of the measure in Ireland, as a warning to the Attorney General for England not to proceed next year with his scheme.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that the rea-

1345
son judicial declarations of title were not more sought in Ireland was the expense.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
(63.) £450, Revising Barristers (Dublin).
(64.) £300, Court of Errors, &c. (Ireland).
(65.) £1,200, Police Justices (Dublin).
(66.) £31,780, Metropolitan Police (Dublin).
(67.) £545,561, Constabulary Force (Ireland).
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he would invite the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) to bring forward the statement ho so often threatened in connection with this Vote. Ho (Colonel French) complained of the appointment of head constable in Ireland being given to an English officer. The duties of the force consisted chiefly in the collection of the Imperial revenues, and, therefore, he thought it was but fair that the charge of the body should be thrown on the Consolidated Fund. The system pursued by those English officers might make the police something of soldiers but it made them very indifferent policemen.
MR. M'CANNsaid, that the Irish police were turned into a sort of revenue officers. That exposed them to the temptation of receiving bribes; and he had heard on good authority that corruption was creeping into the force from that source. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland would turn his attention to the matter.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had communicated with the authorities, and found that the revenue duty was much better done by the police force than it had been discharged before it was placed in their hands. The highest encomiums were passed on this fine force by the Judges going circuit in Ireland. One of the most experienced officers in the London force, and who was also acquainted with Ireland, had told him (Mr. Cardwell), in answer to a question which he had put to him on the subject, that the best thing he could do with the Irish police was to let them alone. In appointments the best man was always looked for by the Government. The head of the Irish police was an Irishman, and Sir Richard Mayne, the head of the London police, was also a native of Ireland.
MR. BRADYcomplained of the re-
1346
strictions to which the Irish constabulary were obliged to submit with reference to marriage, and said he hoped that inquiries would be instituted into the subject previous to next Session.
LORD FERMOYsaid, he thought that the officer who had recommended the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) not to meddle with the police force in Ireland had given him very good advice—good for the police themselves, because an establishment was seldom served by interference on the part of a person who did not know much about it. He thought the promotions to high offices in the Irish police ought to be kept in the force itself, and that the Government ought not to import officers from the Horse Guards to fill those offices.
Vote agreed to.
(68.) £2,117, Four Courts Marshalsea Prison (Dublin).
(69.) £17,707, Inspection, &c, of Prisons.
(70.) £368,029, Prisons and Convict Establishments.
(71.) £159,357, Maintenance of Prisoners, &c.
(72.) £20,671, Transportation of Convicts, &c.
(73.) £173,827, Convict Establishment (Colonies).
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.

JEWS.—RESOLUTION.
MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEmoved that the Resolution of the 24th day of January, 1860, be read.
Act of the present Session read; Resolution of the 24th day of January, 1860, read, as follows:—
"That any person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act passed in the twenty-second year of Her Majesty to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.'"
MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEthen moved, that the said Resolution be a Standing Order of this House.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That the said Resolution be a Standing Order of this House.
Standing Order of the 14th day of April, 1859, read, as follows:—
"That, on the meeting of a new Parliament

1347
no Resolution in pursuance of the Act of the twenty-first and twenty-second years of Victoria, chapter forty-nine, which shall have the effect of admitting a Member professing the Jewish Religion to be sworn at the Table, be taken into consideration before Twelve of the clock on the fourth day appointed for taking the Oaths required by Law."
MR. T. S. DUNCOMBE,in moving that this Standing Order be repealed, congratulated the House on the destruction of the last shred of persecution for religion's sake, as far as that House was concerned. As long as great constituencies like London and Greenwich continued to return distinguished members of the Jewish persuasion to that House there was no fear of the people of England reverting to the old system of intolerance.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That the said Standing Order be repealed.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.