§ MR. PELLasked the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Magniac), Whether he is aware that a Motion—which has been deferred from unavoidable circumstances—stands on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), with reference to the subject of the Question about to be put by the hon. Member for St. Ives to the Secretary of the Treasury, and whether he is aware that the same hon. Member had obtained Returns as to these disallowances, both for counties and boroughs?
§ MR. MAGNIACsaid, that, having regard to the intentions of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes), he would refrain from making any Motion, even if the Answer of the Secretary to the Treasury 527 made it necessary. He asked, Whether it is the intention of the Lords of the Treasury to abandon the present system of disallowing portions of the costs of Criminal Prosecutions, which has been described by the Lord Chief Justice in a recent judgment as having no legal authority?
§ MR. BAXTERThe payments made as costs of criminal prosecutions may be classed under four heads—1, Expenses of prosecutors and witnesses; 2, Court fees to clerks of the peace at sessions; 3, fees of justices' clerks; 4, fees of counsel and attorney. Under the first three heads the disallowances of the Treasury chiefly consist in bringing to scale, and correcting mistakes made by the local officers; and it never could have been intended that the Treasury should not have the power of rectifying errors of this kind. Under the fourth head, however, a larger question arises, and it is now under consideration in what manner the Treasury can best reconcile the duty of seeing that irregular charges are not paid out of the grant, conflicting with the interests of the ratepayers in counties and burghs.