HC Deb 15 March 1872 vol 210 cc51-72
SIR MASSEY LOPES

, in rising to call attention to the system of late years adopted by the Treasury with respect to Disallowances for Criminal Prosecutions in Counties, Cities, and Boroughs; and to move— That it is desirable that the Home Office should draw up such an uniform scale of fees and allowances for general use as shall ensure the efficient administration of justice; and that all such expenses hereinafter incurred shall be wholly defrayed by funds appropriated for this purpose by Parliament, said, that the conduct of the Treasury in this matter had given rise to discontent and dissatisfaction, which a recent decision of the highest judicial authority had tended not to allay, but to stimulate. His justification for bringing this subject before the notice of the House was to be found in the fact, that on a late occasion the Court of Queen's Bench, while fully admitting the illegality and irregularity of the practice, pronounced an opinion that they were incompetent to remedy the evil, but recommended an appeal to the highest tribunal—namely, the House of Commons. This was a question which concerned town and country, county and borough alike; it was neither a party nor a political question, and Leaders on both sides were implicated in the practice of which he complained. In 1826, by the Act 7 Geo. IV., it was made incumbent on the Courts of quarter sessions to pay all the expenses of criminal prosecutions, and when these costs were taxed by the proper officers, the treasurers of the respective counties had nothing to do but to pay the amount. The law remained much the same as far as the mode of payment was concerned, but the source from which the funds were derived had since been altered. An Act was passed in 1835 by Mr. Spring Rice, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Lord Melbourne's Government, on the recommendation of a Select Committee of the previous year, providing that half the expenses of criminal prosecutions should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and a Vote of £110,000 was taken in that year for the purpose. In 1846 Sir Robert Peel, when he abolished the Corn Laws and all our commercial relations were altered, proposed as a very slight compensation to the agricultural body that the other half of the costs also should be transferred to the Treasury. Speaking on the 27th of January, 1846, Sir Robert Peel said— And now, in respect to the expense of prosecutions in England, one half of that charge is already paid by the public Treasury. In Scotland the charge is borne altogether by the Treasury; whilst in Ireland there still remains a portion of the charge which is borne by the land. We propose in the case of England, and in the case of Ireland, that that portion of the charge of the expense of prosecutions which is now borne by local rates shall be borne altogether by the public Treasury.…. Now, for the purpose of relief, and for the purpose of combining with relief the means of introducing an improvement of our criminal law, I propose that the whole of the remainder of that charge shall be taken from the land and be borne by the Treasury."—[3 Hansard, lxxxiii. 273.] That was a clear and unmistakable compact, and his complaint was, that it had been infringed, and in a very great degree repudiated. In 1851, by the Act 14 & 15 Vict., the Secretary of State took powers to make fresh rules and regulations with respect to the fees and costs of these criminal prosecutions, and in 1858 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) made those rules and regulations. In the previous year, 1857, the Treasury appointed Criminal Examiners. These gentlemen, who resided in Spring Gardens, had taken upon themselves to review and tax the orders of the Courts, though they had no knowledge whatever of the circumstances of the case. It was quite true that after the right hon. Member for Morpeth made the rules and regulations, the costs of those criminal prosecutions were much reduced. Previously the Courts of quarter sessions made their own rules and regulations; but when the Government took the payment upon themselves, it was right that they should make their own rules. The effect was that the costs, which on an average amounted in the counties to £250,000 a-year, were cut down to £150,000. He was not going to say that the Examiners had not done some good. At first, they probably cut off a few abuses; but that did not entitle them to exercise their powers in an arbitrary or capricious way. They had gone on from time to time making rules and regulations, without giving the counties any previous intimation; and on the most frivolous pretexts they had made disallowances, when they had no knowledge of the case whatever. Last y-ear he moved for Returns of the amount of disallowances in every county and borough in England and Wales, and of the total sum paid for criminal prosecutions for seven years—namely, from 1864 to 1870. The Returns were given for six years instead of seven, and the note attached to each page was to this effect—that though ordered by this House in July, 1871, the accounts for 1870 had not yet been paid or examined. Now, he maintained that it was a great hardship that, whereas the counties and boroughs were obliged to pay these costs upon the nail, the Treasury should not for a space of between one and two years have reimbursed them. From these Returns it appeared that the disallowances for the six years were, for the counties of England, at the rate of 6 per cent, and of Wales at the rate of 11 per cent, and for the boroughs of England, 11 per cent. Though the whole cost of the criminal prosecutions for the six years had been £1,000,000, the disallowances amounted to only £78,000, or at the rate of £13,000 a-year. Now, he asked, was it worth the while of the Government, for the sake of so paltry a sum as £13,000 a-year, to create so much irritation and dissatisfaction? It was an act of petty larceny on the part of the Executive, and he insisted that the amount saved hardly paid the expenses of the Examiners, their staff and office. But the worst of it was those gentlemen were obliged to be vexatious and disagreeable—to be active and fussy, in order to make the Government think that they were of some use. The sum at stake was small, but the principle was large; and here a weighty and more serious consideration came in, for these petty disallowances tended very much to impede the due and efficient administration of justice. There were many hon. Gentlemen present who, as magistrates, could confirm him when he said that there was a great difficulty in inducing people to prosecute. They were most anxious to escape every possible expense attaching to it. The other night, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. S. Walpole) introduced his Public Prosecutors Bill, he stated that there was a vast deal of collusion among prosecutors—that out of 50,000 or 60,000 committals there were only about 13,000 or 14,000 convictions; that individuals were deterred from prosecuting, and did everything in their power to escape the expense; that they failed to institute proceedings when they ought, and stopped them when they could. An additional hardship arose from the fact that the Examiners had endeavoured to cut down and reduce the expenditure simply to the cost of the prosecutors, whereas they were intended to comprise the whole cost of the prosecutions. He had presented a Petition from his own county, and would mention, out of the many hardships the Petitioners detailed, this one. Some years ago an arrangement was made with the clerk of the peace to pay him a salary, instead of the fees attached to his office. That salary was, of course, calculated on the fees which he had been in the habit of receiving. He had received a fee of 16s. for the cost of prosecutions, witnesses, and recognizances. In 1859 the clerk of the peace went to the Examiners and they confirmed that fee. On being appealed to, one of the Examiners said he could not tell why they had repudiated that arrangement. The fee of 16s. had been cut down to 4s., and the ratepayers were obliged to pay the difference. That was a great hardship, but it was not the only one. The ratepayers had to pay between £600,000 and £700,000 for the cost of the administration of justice. They were paying that as one class of the community only; whilst the only boon that had been given to the agricultural interest—to the ratepayers, since 1847 was that given by Sir Robert Peel amounting to £75,000, and he thought it very hard that the Government should attempt to minimize that sum in the way they were now doing. Last year the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) had stated that he (Sir Massey Lopes) had not compared the very large concessions made by Sir Robert Peel with the small additional burdens which had been placed on the rates. Now, in 1847 the whole amount raised by local taxation was £7,000,000, whilst in 1870 it was £12,000,000. In 1847 the whole amount of the county rates raised by the Poor Rate assessment was £1,300,000, whilst in 1870 it was £2,600,000. There was scarcely a county or borough in which the magistrates at quarter sessions had not taken the matter into their serious consideration, and presented Petitions on the subject. He now came to what he had referred in the early part of his speech, and which was, that on a recent occasion, a case came before the magistrates of Lancaster, who tried to obtain a mandamus the Court of Queen's Bench to enforce the payment of these disallowances by the Treasury. The Court of Queen's Bench was unanimous in declaring that the conduct of the Treasury was unjust and indefensible; that it was at variance with the words and terms of the Appropriation Act; that they did not give their decision on the merits, but must treat the matter as one of privilege. Now, he was as loyal a man as any hon. Member of the House; but he confessed that when he heard the words "prerogative" and "privilege" they grated on his ear; and anyone who used the words to shelter and shield himself from the consequences of neglecting some duty which ought to fall upon him, was not doing his best to uphold the most excellent Monarchical institutions which we at present enjoyed. The question was treated by the Judges as one of privilege. The Lord Chief Justice said— It seems a most anomalous and monstrous thing that when a Court before which a criminal prosecution is tried thinks it necessary in the due administration of justice to order certain expenses to be incurred, to have two gentlemen sitting somewhere in Spring Gardens to override the authority of the Court itself, and disallow expenses which have been directed to be incurred. Mr. Justice Blackburn said that the Treasury were bound to pay the warrants taxed by the officers in the various counties, and that they were, in fact, to indemnify the counties, and reimburse to them all the sums they paid. Mr. Justice Mellor thought the Treasury had no right to review the taxation when made by the proper officer. Mr. Justice Lush was of opinion that the Appropriation Act required them to pay all the costs taxed and allowed by the proper officer. Now, he (Sir Massey Lopes) thought there would be no difficulty in having a uniform scale of fees for general observance, and that they ought not to be cut too fine, if they wanted not to impede the course of justice. There was one thing that ought to be done immediately, and that was to do away with the Act of 7 Geo. IV., which made it incumbent on the treasurer of the magistrates to pay these fees first. He thought there should be no intervention—that the Treasury should send down their officers, who would be at liberty to apply to the Judge on the spot. He was as great an advocate of genuine economy as anyone, but he was opposed to pettifogging and pernicious parsimony. The one was salutary, but the other defeated its own object. He now submitted his Motion to the House, confident that although the Court of Queen's Bench felt incompetent to deal with the matter, and had therefore recommended that it should be brought before a higher tribunal, the House of Commons would tell the Government that they ought to discontinue a practice which was unsound, impolitic, and unjust.

MR. MAGNIAC

, in seconding the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon, said, he considered it the duty of the Government to provide sufficient means for the due administration of justice. If ever there was a case in which the country ought to provide such means, it was in the case of the unpaid magistrates—a body of men who performed their duties without fear or favour, although in many instances without appreciation. He wished to clear the ground of misapprehension which existed, by saying at once that he did not question the right of the country to tax the costs in question; but he contended that they ought to be supervised by proper authorities. When he put a Question the other night to the Secretary of the Treasury on this subject, the reply of the hon. Gentleman seemed to amount to an ad captandum appeal to the economic principles of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, and stated that he would attend to the matter with a due regard to the interests of the ratepayers. That answer was a proof that the hon. Gentleman was little acquainted with the subject—that he thought it his duty to protect somebody, and therefore mentioned the ratepayers. The answer was certainly more sharp and argumentative than the case required. The case was simply this—in conducting prosecutions certain expenses were of necessity incurred, and those expenses were taxed by the "proper officers of the Court," to quote the words of the Act of Parliament under which the offices were created and the officials appointed. This officer, having taxed the costs, granted his certificate, which was then presented to the county treasurer, who had no option but to pay it. The ratepayers had, therefore, no earthly control in the matter. Notwithstanding the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman to protect the interests of the ratepayers, no amount of protection he could afford would affect them in the slightest degree, because the ratepayers' own officer had no option in the matter. After the county treasurer had dealt with the certificate of the taxing officer, he sent it on to the Treasury in London, where occurred the extraordinary proceeding which the hon. Baronet had described. Two official gentlemen, very pleasantly housed in New Street, Spring Gardens, where they occupied an establishment costing something like £4,000 a-year, exclusive of some £200 a-year for rent, occupied themselves, ostensibly, in supervising bills of costs amounting to £148,000 a-year. The Secretary to the Treasury said the part of the matter to which these officials had particularly to direct their attention was the correcting mistakes made by the local officials. They must be extraordinary clever gentlemen, if in London they could detect mistakes made on the spot where the trial occurred by officials who had all the facts immediately under their notice. If they could do what the Secretary to the Treasury claimed from them, the officials in Spring Gardens would be very cheap at the price they cost; but it must be clear that the task was impossible of accomplishment. The proper officers, appointed as he had before observed by Parliament, taxed the bills of costs, which were then handed over to improper officers for supervision—a state of things he hoped soon to see put an end to, notwithstanding that England was, or was said to be, an eminently Conservative country. The author of the system was the late Mr. Wilson, whom all would admit to have been a most able and zealous economist; but in reference to this matter, his instinct carried him too far, and he inaugurated a system which had proved to be impracticable. He had no objection to the principle of taxing bills of costs; but he insisted, as he had a right to, that the taxation should be an efficient and proper one. He was not alone in that opinion. The Lord Chief Justice said nothing could be more anomalous and unsatisfactory than the present system, which disallowed as costs, expenses that ought to be borne by the public; Mr. Justice Blackburn said the remedy was only to be obtained by an application to Parliament; and Mr. Justice Lush held it to be clear that in 1865, the Resolution of the House of Commons ordered that the costs of prosecutions formerly borne by counties should thenceforward be paid out of the sum granted annually by Parliament, It had been stated that the supervision to which he referred saved the country £28,000 a-year; but he was not prepared to admit that all the deductions made from the bills were such as ought to have been made. A Friend of his who occupied a seat on the Treasury bench told him on the previous day, of a case in which the expenses of a prosecutor, who happened to be a railway porter, were disallowed, because the gentlemen in New Street thought he ought to have had a free pass by the railway. The gentlemen who effected this striking piece of economy did not trouble themselves to inquire whether the man travelled over the line of the company in whose service he was; whether the company in question were in the habit of granting free passes at all; or, whether they granted passes to their own servants, when they were travelling on business other than that of the company. Another point to which the hon. Baronet did not refer, but which still possessed some importance, was the inconvenience resulting from the delay in settling these accounts. Occupations of property in the country changed frequently, and it was an injustice upon an occupier to enter upon his holding, and find himself suddenly saddled with a liability to pay part of the costs of a proceeding in which he had neither part nor interest. That was an injustice which ought to be remedied by the adoption of a more prompt mode of payment. With regard to the position of hon. Members of that House, most of them were members of Courts of quarter sessions, and in reference to this question, he thought they had a double duty to perform. As Members of Parliament, they were bound to protect the Imperial funds; as magistrates sitting in quarter sessions, they ought to look after the interests of the ratepayers in the particular counties to which they belonged. In reference to the question of the most satisfactory mode of settling the matter, he thought it would be well to hand over the whole business from the Treasury to the Home Office. There were principles at work in the Treasury which in a matter of this kind might conduce to, he would not say injustice, but to a somewhat illiberal dealing with the people who had to provide the money, which might result in injustice; while at the Home Office the object would be to prevent the waste of money, but at the same time to secure the proper administration of justice. He hoped and expected the right hon. Gentleman would give such an answer as would enable hon. Members to inform their constituents that the irritation caused by this anomaly would not last any longer. As regarded a uniform table of fees, he advocated the principle most earnestly, believing it would greatly conduce to the proper administration of justice. In conclusion, he would appeal with confidence to the House and to the Treasury Bench to put an end to the arbitrary reign of the gentlemen in New Street.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is desirable that the Home Office should draw up such an uniform Scale of Fees and Allowances for Criminal Prosecutions in Counties, Cities, and Boroughs, for general use, as shall ensure the efficient administration of justice; and that all such expenses hereinafter incurred shall be wholly defrayed by funds appropriated for this purpose by Parliament,"—(Sir Massey Lopes,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. BRUCE

said, this was a very old grievance. It was not chargeable to the present or to any other Administration in particular; for he could remember that 20 years ago, when he took an active part in public business in his own county, he had to represent their grievances to the Home Office. He sympathized with much that had been said on the subject, and having looked into the matter with the desire of finding a solution of the difficulty, he was bound to say the inquiry had revealed a great deal that was unsatisfactory. A solution of the difficulty must be found, but he was bound to say that he was not fully prepared to indicate what the ultimate solution would be. The expenses of these prosecutions were, as every one knew, formerly charged on the rates, but in the year 1836 the Treasury undertook the payment of half of them, and Sir Robert Peel in 1846 undertook to relieve the local rates of the whole cost. One result of the change was a rapid increase in the cost of the prosecutions; and, consequently, a Board of Examiners was appointed to check the accounts. There had been a great deal of talk about economy, in rather a contemptuous tone, which he thought could hardly be justified by the results of the original appointment of the Examiners. At the present day, when the charges were better understood by the country and by the Treasury, the reductions were not very considerable in amount; but such was not the case at first, and it was impossible to say what the result would be if nothing replaced the superintendence of these gentlemen. In 1852, the cost of these prosecutions was £249,753, which amount was reduced, in consequence of a rigid examination, to £128,000 in 1858, being a reduction of £121,000. From that time to the present, the annual cost had been under £150,000. This reduction had been effected by two gentlemen sitting in London, upon many occasions, he dared say, under circumstances of hardship. But it would be seen that there were inherent difficulties in this question; and if the Home Office were to settle a scale of fees and allowances, as proposed by the hon. Baronet, it would not settle the whole question, because the complaint of the Treasury was not always that the allowances were improper, but often that a witness ought not to have been bound over to give evidence, and that no expenses at all should have been incurred. There was, further, the impossibility of framing a scale of allowances to be paid to counsel. It was absolutely impossible for any Department to frame regulations which would meet the case of all prosecutions; would determine, for instance, either the number of witnesses necessary to prove a case, or the time that would be required for examining them. He had been in communication with the Treasury on this subject, and they had been very anxious to arrive at a solution of the difficulty—but the following anomaly stood in the way. At the quarter sessions the taxing officer did not in any way represent the Government, but was appointed by the justices. If he made an order, it must be immediately obeyed, payment must be made at once by the county; and the grievance was, that the Treasury might afterwards refuse to sanction such payment. In like manner, at the assizes, the taxing officer was appointed by the Judge. It appeared to him, a far better plan would be for the Treasury to have its own officer on the spot, and to be brought at once into communication with the parties, so that the question would be between those who represented the Government on the one side, and those who represented the prosecution on the other. This plan, however, involved many difficulties; one of the principal of which was, that any increase in the number of officers attending the assizes might be an onerous burden on the taxpayers. One of the measures introduced this Session, however, might be a stepping-stone to a satisfactory adjustment of the difficulty. He referred to the Public Prosecutors Bill. The Government would give their support to that Bill; and if it came to a happy issue, there would be on the spot an officer representing the Government who might fairly undertake the duty of fixing the allowances and fees in each case. It had been suggested that the Home Office might undertake the duty of mediating between the counties and boroughs and the Treasury; and, no doubt, if there were some intermediate party who represented the interests of justice as well as the interests of the taxpayers that would, at any rate, be an improvement on the present system. But, on the whole, he thought that the grievance which he admitted to exist, and which he, on the part of the Government, would express an earnest desire to remove, might be best remedied in connection with the system of public prosecutors. The matter was being considered by the Treasury and the Home Office; and, in conclusion, he hoped the hon. Baronet would be satisfied with the assurance he had just given, and would not deem it necessary to press his Motion to a division.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, it was clear there was no question as to who was eventually to pay the costs, which would be ultimately defrayed by the country at large; and he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that there was to be no attempt to impose on the counties and boroughs a charge which ought to be borne by the country. The right hon. Gentleman had not, however, sufficiently considered the fact, that the county or borough had to pay in the first instance the full amount ordered by the taxing master. At present there existed this anomaly—when a prosecution had taken place, and the bill had been taxed by the authorized taxing officer, it came up to London and was looked over by the gentlemen acting in New Street for the Treasury, who disallowed all items they thought fit to object to; but those disallowances were not made in time to prevent the county being mulcted, for it had already paid them, and the loss therefore fell upon the ratepayers, who practically had no voice in the matter. The county paid the items, because the taxing officers allowed them; and yet it could not get the money back from the Treasury, which undoubtedly had already stepped in to a certain extent to regulate the fees and the charges. He did not complain of that, because the purse and the persons that had to pay ought to have the control of the expenditure, provided always two principles were carried out—first, that there was no payment which was not absolutely necessary, and, secondly, that the payments were sufficient to prevent the frustation of justice. Of course, the Treasury could not tell what witnesses were necessary in any case, nor what fees ought to be paid to counsel; and therefore the taxing of the costs must be local and immediate. In cases of dispute, the taxing master was subject to the direction of the Judge, and the Treasury could have no better protection. He would mention two out of a great number of cases which had been submitted to him. At the Lancashire January Sessions, 1871, there was a peculiar charge under an old Act of Parliament, and the Judge directed that the indictment should be drawn by counsel, whose fee of £1 3s. 6d. the Treasury refused to pay. On inquiring into the matter at the office in New Street, he found there was an endorsement at the bottom of the bill, in the handwriting of the clerk of the peace, stating that this was a peculiar indictment under an old statute, and that by order of the Court it was drawn by counsel. That was a case in which there ought to have been immediate and final taxation. In the second case there were two bills against one person, who was convicted and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude; they were taxed by the proper officer, there was an order of the Court in relation to both, and the costs of one were refused, with this endorsement—"The case does not appear from the calendar to be necessary." Because the second case did not happen to appear in the calendar, which is drawn up by the gaoler, under the Gaol Act, the gentlemen in New Street disallowed to the county a sum of £6 or £7. This case also showed how absolutely necessary it was that taxing should be local. If an appeal had been made to the Judge in this case, the matter would have been set right in a moment. The taxing officers ought to be held responsible for the proper discharge of their duties on the spot. If they did not, in the opinion of the Treasury, perform their duties properly, persons could be sent round to see how matters were carried out; and, surely, when it was known on what principles the officers were to act, the Judges could be trusted to see that those principles were acted on.

MR. SCOURFIELD

, who supported the Motion, said, he did not see that the matter had any connection with the Bill relating to the appointment of public prosecutors, and denied that the clerks of Assize had any local interests. If economy were to be the first consideration, that might be attained in perfection by prosecuting nobody; but efficiency and not economy ought to be the first object. The cost of prosecutions ought to be looked at in relation to the wealth of the country and the immense amount of property to be protected, and looking at it in that light, he did not see that these expenses were by any means out of proportion.

MR. WHARTON

said, the remedy for the grievance complained of would seem to be the abolition of the gentlemen at the office in New Street, who could have no special knowledge on which to act, and who could cut the charges down only to please their superiors. An instance had come to his knowledge where these gentlemen had by their official act insulted two eminent Judges. At the Durham Assizes, a man was prosecuted by an indictment containing several counts, for night poaching, with violence, and found guilty and sentenced. Then arose a question of costs. Whereupon Mr. Baron Martin, who tried the case, said he would consult Mr. Justice Willes upon the point. He did so; and it being the opinion of both the learned Judges that the costs ought to be paid by the Treasury, an order was made accordingly; but when the account was sent to New Street, the Examiners there struck out the costs, in direct opposition to the opinion of two very eminent Judges. They had heard a great deal about economy, in connection with this subject; but he doubted whether it was good economy, that convictions should break down for want of witnesses, fearing the Treasury would not allow the expenses. On several occasions he had heard Judges complain of the parsimony of the Treasury, and say that justice was defeated by it; and the only remedy that could be effectual might, he thought, be found in a scale of fees prepared with considerable latitude, and in the appointment by the Treasury of a taxing master, who should be on the spot, whose charges should be certified by the Judge of Assize or the chairman of quarter sessions, and whose costs should not then be interfered with by the Treasury. Whether he was a public prosecutor, or a gentleman who could accompany the Judge on circuit, it did not matter. Under the present system, it was an uncommon hardship upon barristers, when the costs of witnesses whose evidence was requisite to complete a case were disallowed by the Treasury. He had heard that the course adopted by the Government in this matter was defended in the interests of ratepayers. Well, all he could say on the point was that, instead of being contented, the ratepayers were greatly irritated by the operation of the system now in practice, in throwing these costs back upon them; and, on their be half, he demanded the reason why they should be called upon so frequently to pay them.

MR. LEEMAN

, as a clerk of the peace for 30 years, said, he could endorse every word that had fallen from the hon. Baronet with regard to the taxation of costs under the present system being an abuse against and prejudicial to the administration of justice. He did not propose to trouble the House with the details; but he had in his hand particulars of the disallowances which had been made to costs paid in the division of the county where he acted as clerk of the peace, and if he were allowed to read that statement he was sure it must result in the dismissal of the gentlemen in Spring Gardens. What was the present practice? It often happened that cases came before a court of quarter sessions which required the services of counsel in drawing the indictment. The chairman was acquainted with the circumstances, and, under his direction, fees were paid to counsel for those services; but, on the cost being submitted to the Treasury the gentlemen in Spring Gardens struck out the very fees which the chairman of quarter sessions had allowed. The greater part of the expenses incurred at quarter sessions was for bringing witnesses from a distance. How was it possible for the officials at New Street to know all the circumstances connected with cases of that character? Whatever they did know of them, they were constantly disallowing payments to distant but necessary witnesses subpoenaed by the attorney for the prosecution. There was a variety of other instances to the details of which he could readily refer. Although the clerks of the peace were guided by a scale of charges fixed, if not by the present Home Secretary at least by his predecessors, for the remuneration of counsel as well as witnesses, yet in almost every case within his own experience the officers at the Treasury disallowed charges so fixed. [Mr. BRUCE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman might dissent; but he was prepared to prove the statement by the papers he had in his hand. Unless the Treasury officers, therefore, were prepared to cast an imputation upon the clerks of the peace in taxing these charges, he most strenuously maintained that these disallowances ought not to be made. With regard to one uniform scale of fees, he did not think that one could be fixed for counties, because their circumstances differed so widely—as in mining, manufacturing, and agricultural districts, and he thought the hon. Baronet would do well to omit the word "uniform" from the Resolution. With the exception of that modification he concurred in the Motion of the hon. Baronet, and hoped it would have the entire approval of the House.

MR. WINTERBOTHAM

said, he wished to make an explanation in behalf of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce), who appeared to have been misunderstood by one or two hon. Members in the remarks he had offered to the House on this subject. The House and the Treasury had one object—namely, they desired that costs should be rightly ascertained, and, if correct, paid by the Treasury. With respect to the first of these questions, the Government agreed that the present system of ascertaining the correctness of costs was unsatisfactory. If the Treasury were to bear these costs, it was at least a rude way of taxing to filter them through the county, especially if the county had no power of checking or controlling the costs. In fact, the reason was traceable to an historical fact—that the county was under a statutory obligation to pay them, and it was only relieved by the repayment which was allowed from year to year by the annual Vote of that House. He would admit that the friction which had arisen in the working of the system afforded a sufficient reason for its re-consideration, and, if possible, its re-adjustment; but he did not think the scale indicated by the Motion of the hon. Baronet met the difficulty. His own belief was, that a scale for the professional remuneration of attorneys and counsel was not possible, and his conviction was based on the experience of civil Courts, where no attempt that he was aware of had ever been made to determine beforehand what should be the remuneration in any particular instance. The same difficulty would be found in criminal proceedings. Instead of avoiding discontent, he believed a uniform scale of fees would produce hardship greater than that now complained of. With regard to fees payable to justices' clerks, he hoped the Bill on that subject now before the House would make satisfactory provision. As to the clerk of assize, the present taxing officer on circuit, the Government had no control over him, as he was appointed by the senior Judge of the circuit to the office for life. While expressing the hope that the Public Prosecutors Bill might meet the difficulty, because he would be a Government officer and all the costs would pass through his hands, he wished the House to understand that the Government did not rely upon the passing of that measure for a remedy. The Government had more than one course before them. They had at least three strings to their bow. While the subject was under consideration it would be premature to say which of these should be adopted; but he was satisfied the adoption of any one of them would be a satisfactory remedy for the present state of things. He hoped the hon. Baronet would be satisfied with this assurance without pledging the House to his Resolution.

MR. PAGET

said, he must remind the House that the Public Prosecutors Bill, to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Winterbotham) had referred, was promoted, not by the Government, but by a private Member, and that it would be liable to the exigencies which so frequently attended independent legislation. One grievance of which he had to complain was this—when costs were first examined the Treasury officials acted with singular astuteness by disarming their adversaries. They said—"Now that the expenses of prosecution are to be paid by us, we have a right to retain the vouchers for them." Accordingly, they locked them up, and never returned them to the clerk of the peace. The result was, that the items objected to were known to the objectors, but never to anybody else; and the taxation of costs was thus conducted solely on behalf of the Treasury, irrespective of the ratepayers. The sole object of this minute taxation, he believed, was to put a stop to irregularities in expenditure; but the actual course adopted was to detain the vouchers, so that county magistrates could not supervise their own officers, and inquire into the reason why these particular charges were made. It was said that certain fees were only allowed by the Treasury in extraordinary cases; but the question whether a case were or were not extraordinary should be decided by the Judge who tried it, and not by irresponsible gentlemen at Westminster, who took upon them to set his decision aside, as had been done in some instances which came under his personal notice. He was glad that the Treasury at length saw the necessity of making some concession in reference to this matter; but he could not help recollecting that last Session the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied in a very different sense, contending that there was no ground for the Government acceding to the application that had been made to them. He thought that to remedy the matter which was complained of, the position in which counties and boroughs stood in reference to being reimbursed, the liability of the Government to defray the costs of prosecutions should be clearly defined by statute. Another thing required was, that the costs should be taxed upon the spot, where any necessary explanations could be given. When the present subject was taken into consideration by the Government, he hoped that the scale of fees established in 1858 would also be considered. In applying the scale to counties the Government acted upon this singular principle. They said that any county fee which was above the Government scale should be reduced; but they declined to raise any item that was lower than their own scale. It was this that had given rise to the difference of scale in different counties which had been complained of. The essential point, however, was, that in the administration of criminal justice the expenses of prosecution should not be thrown upon those who proceeded against offenders, As the grievance complained of had now been recognized by the Government, perhaps it would not be necessary for the hon. Baronet to press his Motion to a division. He hoped, however, that the hon. Baronet, in withdrawing it, would reserve to himself the right to bring it forward again in case it should not be satisfactorily dealt with by the Government.

MR. C. S. READ

observed, that the disallowance of cost in counties by the Treasury was 6 per cent, whilst in the boroughs it was no less than 11 per cent; and therefore the question was one which had even more interest for borough than for county Members. He not only objected to these deductions, but to the system which prevailed in making them. The counties sent up all their details of expenses and the vouchers; and then they received an intimation that there would be certain deductions, which they could not trace, so that no assistance was afforded them if they desired in future to conform to any new scale of the Home Office. Last year, in Norfolk, £42 was claimed as expenses for prosecuting a very dangerous burglar, and from that large sum the Treasury deducted 6d. in respect of mileage charged for a witness. There were several, and it was impossible to say to which the deduction applied. How could a gentleman in London know the exact distance which a witness had travelled? In another case a deduction of 1s. 6d. had been made with regard to a witness who had been detained, and it was impossible for the gentlemen who made that deduction to know as well as the Judge who tried the case what necessity there was for detaining the witness, neither could they know whether there had been a necessity to employ extra counsel in another case. Further, the Government was extremely tardy in this and in all other cases of paying money that was due from them, whilst the Chancellor of the Exchequer required the taxes long before they were due. In the case of these allowances sometimes more than 12 months passed before the counties received them. The Home Secretary had said he thought there ought to be some intermediate taxing officer; but what better taxing officer could they have than the clerk of assize, who was neither the servant of the ratepayers nor of the Government, but a totally independent man? The Home Secretary told them a remedy for that evil would probably be supplied by the Public Prosecutors Bill; but what they wanted was a speedy remedy, and this they were not likely to obtain through that Bill, which, as it stood for Committee about the end of June, would probably not be passed this Session. As to the observation of a Minister of the Crown—that it would be a serious thing for the Judges to have the expenditure of the public money, he could only say that he would rather trust the Judges of England with his life than the Treasury with sixpence.

MR. PELL

said, he was glad to have it admitted that this was an old grievance, and thought that, unlike old wine, it did not improve with age. That reason, therefore, he was of opinion, took it from the sphere of party, and strengthened the claim for a speedy and effectual remedy which men of all shades of politics wished to see effected. The country wanted to see payment follow immediately the allowance of the taxing master. Very often, however, 12 months elapsed before the money was paid. The present system operated most unjustly in the county with which he was connected—Leicestershire; and as one example of the glaring anomalies it involved, he mentioned that in Leicestershire the fee allowed from time immemorial to prosecuting attorneys was £2 2s. The Examiners having disallowed half of the sum, a correspondence ensued, in which the antiquity of the allowance was urged by the county, as well as its reasonableness. The Treasury, however, would not yield. Further inquiry brought to light the fact that in Shropshire the allowance to attorneys for conducting a criminal prosecution was and is £3 3s.; upon which a letter was addressed to the Treasury, asking how it came about that the larger sum was allowed in Shropshire, while a smaller one was disallowed in Leicestershire. The Treasury replied that the fee in Shropshire having been of old standing, the Examiners had no power to disallow it. But in the county of Leicester it appeared that the antiquity of the fee did not bar the disallowance one-half. The anomaly ought to be remedied.

MR. HENLEY

thought, after what had occurred in the Court of Queen's Bench, it was necessary the Government should know that a strong feeling prevailed among the ratepayers both in the counties and the boroughs that they had been robbed for 25 years with a strong hand by successive Governments. The Court of Queen's Bench had expressed a very decided and distinct opinion that the Government had no right to dock those expenses in the way they had been docking them; and it was very natural that the people out of whose pockets that money was taken should be disposed to speak very plainly about the matter, and should come to the conclusion that they had been robbed. The question, however, now was, how they could best remedy that state of things. He believed there was but one way of doing it, and that was to settle the amount to be paid at what sum they pleased, but to pay it themselves, and keep wholly clear of borough and county finance. The inconvenience to the controllers of county finance was extreme. They could never calculate what they would get or when they would get it; but being unable to delay payment, they were obliged to raise the money by increasing the rates. He had known the Treasury repayments to be 12 months in arrear; the dissatisfaction caused by the system to the ratepayers was out of all proportion to the amount of money in dispute, for although not large it sometimes necessitated an additional farthing rate; and nothing would set it at rest but a complete change. The question of public prosecutor had nothing to do with the question, and ought not to be imported into it. The thing objected to was that when a Judge ordered a county to pay £10, the Treasury came after and said that only £8 17s. 6d. should be paid. The officer employed just nibbled a little at the order to show he was doing something for his pay. He had called it robbery, but it really seemed more like swindling, and should be put a stop to at once.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

observed, that the whole of the debate had been in favour of the proposal of his hon. Friend (Sir Massey Lopes), and there had not been one voice raised to controvert the opinions he had laid down. If he gathered aright the opinion of the Treasury Bench, it was that they meant to deal effectually with the proposition of his hon. Friend. The House expected that the Government would deal effectually with it, and at once. If the Government failed, he hoped the House would hold them responsible for the failure, and that his hon. Friend would bring the matter forward again at the very earliest possible opportunity.

MR. DISRAELI

said, he took a deep interest in this question, representing a county contiguous to that with respect to which his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire had addressed them. He wished, on the part of his constituents, to express what they wished and desired. He thought their wishes were reasonable, and their requirements ought to be granted. What they required was fixed charges and prompt payment. These were the two points on which they hoped Government would satisfy them, and he trusted that the discussion would secure this result. He very much regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been present on this occasion, and that the subject, which was peculiarly the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been left to be dealt with by the Home Secretary.

MR. BAXTER

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been present the whole evening, and only left a few minutes ago. [Mr. DISRAELI: Why did he not speak?] Because the Home Secretary had stated so fully and exhaustively the views of the Government on the subject. As to the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex, I may say the Government accept, in the fullest sense, the responsibility to which he refers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.