§ SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £37,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1869, for Law Charges, and for the Salaries, Allowances, and Incidental Expenses, including Prosecutions relating to Coin, in the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury.
§ MR. KINNAIRDasked whether it was usual to proceed with the Estimates at Eleven o'clock? and suggested that, as it had been expected the whole night would be devoted to the Scotch Reform Bill, some other Scotch Bills on the Paper should be forwarded. He moved that the Chairman report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Kinnaird.)
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that Scotch Members on the opposite side of the House were not quite consistent. Early in the evening they had been anxious that Scotland should be regarded as an integral part of the Empire, but the hon. Member for Perth now wished Scotland to be treated as altogether distinct, and general Business to be stopped, for fear that the interests of Scotland should not be attended to. That the Scotch Reform Bill had not occupied the whole night was no reason for not proceeding with Supply.
§ MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that ten Scotch Bills had been put in the Paper for that night, and he wished to know whether those Bills would be proceeded with. He would withdraw his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agree to,
§
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £163,776, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1869, for Prosecutions at Assizes and Quarter Sessions, formerly paid out of County Rates, including Adjudications under the Criminal Justice Act, Sheriffs' Expenses, Salaries in lieu of Fees to Clerks of Assize and other Officers, and for Compensation to Clerks of the Peace under the same Act, and certain other Expenses of the same Class.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to know whether the Attorney General had any further explanation to give respecting the duties of the Clerks of Assize? At present, after the explanation given by the hon. and learned Gentleman on a former evening, and which he heard with pain, he thought that these officers did not discharge duties for which a salary of £1,000 a year was requisite, and that it was incumbent on the Treasury to make inquiry into the salaries of all the offices in this Vote.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that all he stated the other night was that it was not necessary that a Clerk of Assize should be either a barrister or a solicitor. He would not go at any length into the duties of a Clerk of Assize; but it was absolutely necessary that there should be on every circuit officers to perform duties connected with the administration of justice. He had himself had to sit as a Commis- 496 sioner on the Western Circuit, and there was sometimes a difficulty in getting a clerk to go into a third and fourth Court. He would repeat that a great portion of the business which devolved upon the Clerks of Assize was not such as to require legal knowledge. He had the control over certain officers, and had to conduct the correspondence with the sheriffs and gaolers, and to assist the Judges in the general arrangements of the business of the different Courts of Assize. He also had to keep an office in town. He would not retract what he had said the other night, that although some legal knowledge was required, it was not necessary he should be a barrister of seven years' standing or a solicitor in order to discharge the duties of his office.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite satisfactory from his point of view. The Attorney General had shown very clearly that some knowledge of routine and a certain aptitude of organization were required from Clerks of Assize, but it appeared to him (Mr. Childers) to be then undesirable that, taking into account the rates of salary in other departments of the Civil Service, £1,000 would be an excessive salary. He did not complain of Mr. Bovill's appointment, but if a gentleman who a year ago was in a dragoon regiment could in a few months qualify himself for professional duties of this kind, it would be very unfair to the Civil Service generally, that the present salaries should be maintained. He would therefore press the question which he had addressed to the Treasury—namely, whether they would undertake that the salaries of these officers should be re-considered by the Treasury?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) that the Treasury should re-consider the salary of these officers with reference to the duties they were called upon to discharge, was deserving of attention. Since the present Government came into Office their attention had not been called to this subject, but he had no hesitation in saying that the matter should be properly inquired into.
§ MR. FAWCETT moved that the Vote be postponed.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he felt so strongly that it was a gross abuse on the part of the Chief Justice of the Common 497 Pleas to appoint to a legal position one of his sons who twelve months ago was an officer in the army that he would move that the Vote be reduced by £1,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £162,776, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1869, for Prosecutions at Assizes and Quarter Sessions, formerly paid out of County Rates, including Adjudications under the Criminal Justice Act, Sheriffs' Expenses, Salaries in lieu of Fees to Clerks of Assize and other Officers, and for Compensation to Clerks of the Peace under the same Act, and certain other Expenses of the same Class."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, this was a very harsh proposal in reference to this particular appointment. The question in regard to this salary had only been brought under the notice of the Treasury during the last few days, and it had been reserved as a fit subject for consideration. At the same time, they should take into consideration the way these appointments had been made from time immemorial.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEEI cannot agree that the appointment of Clerks of Assize ought to be made without some legal knowledge on the part of the person appointed. The question is not one of salary, but one of qualification, £1,000 a year is not too much if the office is properly filled; but the question is, whether it is properly filled? Send us to the country if you dare. Send us to the country, but do not threaten us with dissolution, and perpetrate your jobs. ["Divide, divide! "] An hon. Gentleman cries "Divide, divide;" perhaps he is looking out for a Clerkship of Assize.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would suggest to the Government that, if the matter was still under their consideration, a postponement of the Vote might be proper and convenient. It would be more satisfactory to the Committee to have the final judgment of Government upon it, and thus approach the consideration of it with more advantage. But, if the Government was unwilling to do this, he must recommend his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) to withdraw his Motion. He would submit to his hon. Friend that to disallow the entire salary of the Gentleman in question was the severest condemnation, short of a direct Resolution of the House, that could possibly be passed upon his appointment; and the House was 498 not in a position in point of information to pass such a Motion. If the thing ought to be done at all, it could only be properly done after a much fuller hearing than had yet been given to it. The pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he understood it, extended to the consideration of the salaries of all the gentlemen holding similar appointments, of whom he believed there were six or eight; and, indeed, on no ground of fairness ought it to be limited to one particular instance. He should therefore feel bound to accept the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the full confidence that a bonâ fide and searching inquiry would be instituted.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he believed that, when a Vote had been proposed, it could not be postponed; but he desired it to be clearly understood that he intended that a full inquiry should be made into the present question, and not merely into this particular case. He also learned that the salary of Mr. Bovill had got to be settled by the Treasury; it would be settled upon a fair and just basis, and it would not at all follow, because the sum asked for was voted, that it would be all expended in the salary. But, after this pledge given by the Government, he trusted that the Committee would not take the strong step suggested by the hon. Member for Brighton. In regard to the appointment, he wished to say a few words in defence of Chief Justice Bovill, with whom he had sat for many years in that House, and for whom he and many others had a great personal regard. The Chief Justice had been singled out in a manner hardly fair. It was well known that, for a long series of years past, distinguished members of the Bar had been accustomed to accept high judicial positions, the emoluments of which were much less than those they were earning at the Bar—influenced partly by the knowledge that there would be a certain amount of patronage at their disposal. He was not defending the system, but only stating what it was. For many years he believed that these appointments had been filled either by the sons or the near relatives of the Chief Justice. The practice might be well done away with; but no one could deny that it existed, and that the present appointment was the result of that practice, and it ought not to be charged upon the individual; though it would be most desirable that it should be understood for the future that appointments of this de- 499 scription ought not to be distributed, as a matter of course, among the personal connections of the Chief Justice.
§ COLONEL NORTHsaid, that, as neither the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) had made any inquiry as to the duties of these officers while they were at the Treasury, the zeal with which they now condemned the appointments was, to say the least, very curious. In his opinion, no blame attached to the Lord Chief Justice for following a practice which had evidently been approved by those hon. Members.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, that if, during the eight or nine months that he was Secretary of the Treasury, he had ascertained the duty, and compared it with the salary, of every officer of the Government, he must have been a man of superhuman power. He, however, never imagined that Clerkships of Assize were offices which did not require to be filled by persons of considerable legal attainments. If the Government were unwilling to postpone the Vote, he trusted that the Committee would accept the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he had not the least doubt the Treasury would faithfully perform. At the same time, he trusted that the House would never for a moment admit that patronage vested in any person in the position of a Judge, was something which was to be looked upon as property, and for which, if he was deprived of it, he was entitled, in some respect or other, to compensation. Any such idea was expressly excluded by a clause of the Act of Parlia-which regulates the offices of Associate and Clerk of Assize.
§ SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he looked upon the legal profession as one of the safeguards of the Constitution, and if it were to go forth to the world that appointments of this description were to be made a slur would be cast upon the profession.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he regretted that notwithstanding the appeals which had been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), and by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), he could not withdraw his Motion. He did not wish to raise a general question as to the revision of the salaries of clerks, whom he had no reason to believe overpaid. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire had stated that the Amendment, if 500 carried, would be a severe vote of censure on Chief Justice Bovill. Believing that the Chief Justice had done that which he ought not to have done, he (Mr. Fawcett) was anxious that the Committee should pass a severe condemnation upon him in this matter.
§ MR. HIBBERTregretted that after the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Amendment had not been withdrawn. He thought it would be much better that the House should lay down some rule that no person should in future be appointed to the office in question who was not of a certain standing at the bar, or a solicitor.
MR. NEVILLE-GRENVILLEsaid, he wished to know whether any complaint had been made of any mischief arising out of this appointment? If an improper appointment had been made no doubt notice ought to be taken of it by the House, but he did not think that the present Amendment was the most dignified form. He was rather surprised to hear from the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckinghamshire (Sir Harry Verney), that a gentleman who had been engaged in the profession to which he (Sir Harry Verney) had formerly belonged was incapable of performing the duties of Clerk of Assize. All he could make out from the present debate was, that a gentleman blessed with a legal education was everything that was good, while there was nothing but inefficiency to be expected from a civilian or a military officer.
§ MR. CLAYsaid, that the hon. Member for Brighton had asked the Committee to pass a severe censure on the Chief Justice, and he (Mr. Clay) was therefore anxious to say that, entertaining a high respect for the Chief Justice—which he believed was shared by all who knew him—he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. If it was, very few Members, he believed, would vote for it. If there was any fault it lay not with the Chief Justice but with that House, which allowed highly-paid places to exist with very slender duties. As long as that was so, they might be sure that those who held the patronage would appoint their own relations. He thought the proposition made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the more satisfactory settlement; it would save more money, and without selecting one instance, which was not worse than the others, would put the whole upon such a footing as was worthy of the House of Commons.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKexpressed a hope that the hon. Member for Brighton would divide the Committee on his Motion.
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, he would remind the Committee that two or three years ago an inquiry was instituted in respect of the Common Law Fee Fund, and it was shown that two previous Chief Justices had appointed their sons to an office relative to the acknowledgments of married women—from which they derived an income of £3,000 a year; and one of them had not been near his office for the previous four years. The House had not however interfered in the matter. Surely this was a justification for the appointment made by the Chief Justice.
§ MR. SERJEANT GASELEE moved that the Chairman report Progress.
§ MR. WATKINseconded the Motion.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Serjeant Gaselee,)—put, and negatived.
§
Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £162,176, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1869, for Prosecutions at Assizes and Quarter Sessions, formerly paid out of County Rates, including Adjudications under the Criminal Justice Act, Sheriffs' Expenses, Salaries in lieu of Fees to Clerks of Assize and other Officers, and for Compensation to Clerks of the Peace under the same Act, and certain other Expenses of the same Class,
§ —put, and negatived.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHdrew attention to the item in the Vote which had reference to the charge for Judges' lodgings. The present arrangement with regard to Judges' lodgings was very unsatisfactory. The sheriff find to pay for the lodgings in advance, and it was in the power of a Judge to fine a sheriff if everything was not to his taste. The money was ultimately paid by the Treasury. He thought it would be as well that the Treasury should pay it in the first instance.
§ MR. MONKsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Government to the necessity for the appointment of an officer to conduct criminal prosecutions. An end ought to be put to the present system by which they were left in the hands of the police.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, that the matter adverted to by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. D. Griffith) was 502 under consideration. A very complicated account had to be settled between the Treasury and the sheriffs every year, and there would be great difficulty in anticipating the period for the settlement of a portion of that account. It did not appear that the sheriffs complained of the present system. He did not say that an improvement might not ultimately be effected in it; but at present he did not see his way to any such improvement. The question of the appointment of a public prosecutor was a large and important question, and could not be properly considered in Committee of Supply.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (3.) £231,000, to complete the sum for the Police.
§ (4.) £49,283, to complete the sum for Common Law Charges.
§ (5.) £18,346, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Charges in England.
§ (6.) £210,070, to complete the sum for County Prisons and Reformatories, &c.
§ (7.) £433,674, to complete the sum for County Courts.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, there had been an increase in this item of £352,685, and he should like to know how that occurred. In Ireland the expense of the Court-houses was defrayed out of the rates; and he could not understand why in England the expenditure for works and purchase of sites should be charged on the Consolidated Fund.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that a large portion of the money was re-paid to the Exchequer in the shape of fees. The increase in the Vote was mainly occasioned by new Courts in various places. It was impossible to resist the applications made from time to time for new Courts.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKasked if it was fair that the whole expense of these Courts should be defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund, when one-half of the expense of the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland came out of the rates, as was mentioned a night or two ago?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that the Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland were used indiscriminately for civil suits and the administration of criminal justice, while in England the Courts for administration of criminal justice were provided for out of local rates.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (8.) £28,950, to complete the sum for Police Courts (London and Sheerness),
503§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, that in the country the expenses of the Police Courts were defrayed out of the rates. In London they came out of the Consolidated Fund. He did not see why the metropolis should not bear Borne portion of the charge.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREcalled attention to the charges for the constabulary in Ireland. He did not see, considering that the population in the metropolis was about half that of Ireland, that the proportion was too much. It was really impossible to levy more money in the metropolis. The whole of the police charge of the metropolis was not charged on the Consolidated Fund; and many of the duties performed by the metropolitan police were not of a local, but of an Imperial character.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that one item of increase in the Vote was for improving the Police Courts of London, which everybody admitted were in a wretched state. It rested with the Treasury and the Home Office to decide when the police courts required to be re-built; and anyone who would take the trouble of looking into those Courts would admit that they were not such buildings as they ought to be. Although the sum was charged in a different manner, the fact really was that the proportion charged for the metropolis was just the same as in other parts of the country.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENthen moved that the Chairman report Progress.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, Progress could be reported when they came to an unopposed Vote.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Sir Colman O'Loghlen,)—put, and negatived.
§
(9.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £165,524, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1869, for the Metropolitan Police.
§ MR. AYRTONinquired when the Bill for the re-organization of the police system was to be introduced?
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that he had given notice of the Bill, and proposed to bring it in on Thursday.
§ MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he objected 504 to the amount of the Vote and to the entire want of details of the various items. He wished for an explanation why the police did not prevent the explosion at Clerkenwell House of Correction, seeing that they had previous warning of what was likely to happen, and the very day and hour was specified.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he had on a former occasion given as much explanation as was in his power. The police were on the spot, but they did not anticipate the particular mode that was adopted for blowing down the prison wall. They were under the impression that the wall would be blown up from below, and took precautions against that, but not against the method that was actually adopted. They were more accustomed to the sight of barrels of beer than barrels of gunpowder, and thinking it was a barrel of beer that was placed against the wall they took no steps to remove it.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Watkin.)
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must remind the Committee they were very backward with Supply this year, and he hoped, as there was then a good attendance in the House, they would be allowed to take a few more Votes that night. If the Committee was adjourned they must sit later to make up the time.
§ MR. WATKINsaid, the Secretary of State had appealed to the Committee to wait till a Vote was reached which was opposed.
§ SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, there were other measures of the Government on the night's Paper; and he would suggest that Progress should be reported after this Vote was agreed to.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (10.) £130,891, to complete the sum for Convict Establishments (Colonies).
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, he hoped that no more convicts would be sent to Gibraltar. It was an extravagant thing to send convicts there, and it was a bad place to send them to. The convict establishment there was bad in point of discipline.
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that a reduced Estimate had been received from Gibraltar since the general Estimates were 505 printed, and consequently the Vote had been reduced by £2,000.
§ MR. CHILDERSobjected to sending convicts to Gibraltar at all. The labour of convicts was required at home.
§ MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, there had been a demand from Gibraltar for convicts to be employed on the extensive works there, and he was not aware that the labour of additional convicts was required at home.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the convicts were sent out to Gibraltar and ultimately sent home again, and the process was most expensive.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
§ Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.