§ (1.) £9,192, to complete the sum for the Wreck Commissioner's Office.
§ MR. WHITWELLexpressed the opinion that it would have been better to have constituted this Office an entirely new establishment, instead of imposing double duties upon officers of the Admiralty Registry Office, who already had adequate duties to discharge.
§ MR. BRISTOWEwished to know, what were the regulations that had been made by the Home Office with regard to the salaries and travelling expenses of the nautical assessors, for which a total sum of £6,000 was put down in the Estimates?
§ MR. DODSONasked, whether it was to be inferred from one item in the Vote that fees were paid to unpaid justices, as well as to stipendiary magistrates?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that the Supplementary Vote, respecting which a Question had been asked a few days ago, 1359 was between £1,700 and £1,800. With reference to the payments to magistrates, justices received no fees; but stipendiary magistrates, whose business was, in some cases, greatly increased by wreck inquiries, were paid. With regard to the assessors, it had been decided to transfer their appointment to the Home Office, and practically there had been no change in their remuneration. As regarded the office of Wreck Commissioner, the gentleman who held that office was second to no man in the qualifications necessary for the discharge of the duties attendant upon it. The arrangements so far were tentative, it being desired to ascertain what was the amount of work and where it would have to be performed.
§ MR. NORWOODinquired where the Court of the Commissioner of Wrecks would be finally located?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it was not yet finally decided where the Commissioner was to sit, whether at Westminster or elsewhere; but several places had been tried, and that found most convenient would ultimately be decided upon.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (2.) £36,340, to complete the sum for the London Bankruptcy Court.
§ (3.) £316,643, to complete the sum for the County Courts.
§ (4.) £3,918, to complete the sum for the Land Registry Office.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked, who was the Chief Registrar, as he understood the chief portion of the work was done by the assistant Registrar?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was unable to give the name of the Chief Registrar, but the scale of fees payable in the Office had recently been increased, on the recommendation of the Legal Departments Commission.
§ MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, the Office had been a failure from its institution by Lord Westbury, in 1861 or 1862. It was the laughing stock of the legal Profession, and it was very seldom resorted to for the purpose for which it was established. The amount received for fees was only £776, as against £5,418, the total amount expended on the Office. That had been going on for 15 years at a cost to the nation of 1360 £150,000. Surely something ought to be done to make it self-supporting. It should either be made useful, or it should be abolished.
§ MR. ANDERSONthought the system of registering titles might be made profitable if properly managed. In Scotland the system was universal, and it produced a profit to the revenue of £10,000 a-year.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the Act passed by Lord Westbury for registering titles had undoubtedly been a failure, as people would not take advantage of it. When the Act was passed it was expected that persons would take advantage of it to register their titles, as by doing so it would give them an indefeasible right which could not hereafter be disputed. Two years ago an amending Act had been passed under which some titles had been registered, but certainly not as many as might have been expected; but no doubt the advantages of such registration would be felt by the holders of property, and that the office of Registrar would hereafter be one of importance.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, that nothing had been stated to justify the Committee agreeing to the Vote. He did not believe that people ever would register their titles, and he should, therefore, move that the Vote should be disallowed.
§ Amendment proposed, "That the Vote be disallowed."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERALpointed out that if the Committee accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea, it would be practically taking upon itself the responsibility of repealing an Act which was passed after full discussion only two years ago. The whole question of the existence of the Office of Registration of Titles, and the salary to be paid to that officer, had been discussed at the time the Act passed creating the Office, and it was now too late to take exception to the existence of the Office, or of the salary to the gentleman who filled it.
§ MR. RAMSAYremarked that apart from the point suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General, the registration of titles to land was an object 1361 so desirable to be attained that he hoped the Vote would be agreed to. The flaw, if any, was now in the law, and not in the Department, and he could not therefore support the Amendment. He hoped that the registration of titles would be adopted as a practice before long.
MR. GORSTpointed out that if the Committee refused the Vote, they would in reality be preventing the Government carrying out an Act of Parliament.
§ MR. RYLANDScomplained that the salaries of the gentlemen of this Department had been settled without any knowledge of the amount of work they would have to do, but when once appointed they could not be got rid of.
§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, if there had been one thing more clamoured for than another it was for the registration of titles. Under such circumstances, when the law was passed, it was most necessary that a first-rate man should be made Registrar. A most able lawyer had been appointed, and it was no reason why, because the Act had not succeeded, he should be deprived of his salary. He supported the Vote in the belief that registration of titles would speedily become general.
§ MR. DODSONobserved that at one time there was a great demand for a system of registration, and the Act was passed as an experiment. He never thought it was likely to succeed, because, unless a person really wished to sell, it was not likely he would take the trouble of registering. He could not agree to the proposition of the hon. Member for Swansea, particularly as no Notice of opposition to the Vote had been given.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he would not press his Motion, but hoped the Government would take the subject into their consideration, and arrange the Office so as to make it more useful.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he believed the Act under which the Registrar of Titles was appointed was a dead letter. He should like to know how many titles had been registered?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not, off hand, state the number of deeds already registered under the Act; but it was clear that some landowners had availed themselves of the measure, for a sum of very nearly £800 had been already received by the office in payment of registration fees. If his hon. and learned Friend had given No- 1362 tice of his Question he would have been prepared to give an answer to it.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he would move for a Return on the subject.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (5.) £10,745, to complete the sum for the Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked, what means had been adopted to prevent frauds in regard to the accounting for fines in the police courts?
§ MR. DODSONsaid, the subject came before him as Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts, and they found that rules had been drawn up by which they hoped an efficient check had been secured.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (6.) £251,892, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police.
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEcalled attention to the different scales of gratuities paid to the police doing duty at certain public buildings in London, and suggested that a uniform scale should be established.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that representations on the subject having been made to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, a Minute had been recently drawn up under which the payments in question would be equalized in future.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (7.) £859,098, to complete the sum for Police, Counties and Boroughs (Great Britain).
§ MR. DODSONpointed out that the Vote was increasing year by year with great leaps and bounds. This year the increase was more than £50,000. In all cases where one person provided the money and another had the spending of it, that might be expected to be the case. Nearly 300 local authorities had a claim to the spending of this Vote, and they fixed the number of men and their scale of pay, and under the arrangement made in 1874 the Government provided no less than half the expenditure. Moreover, the Government Inspectors stimulated expenditure. The subsidy had been raised in 1874 1363 from one-fourth of the cost of the police to one-half, but the charge on the Exchequer had more nearly trebled than doubled between 1873 and 1877. When the proposal was made by the Government in 1874, with the full approval of the House, to double the subsidy, it was distinctly regarded as only a temporary arrangement. This clearly appeared from the language used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. A Bill was brought in, which was to remain in operation for only one year, suspending the limit placed by the previous Act on the Government subvention. In 1875 the Home Secretary proposed to introduce a measure dealing with this question of the police in reference to subventions; but when it came to be printed it was found to be nothing more than a Bill continuing for 12 months the Suspensory Act, if he might call it so, of the preceding year. The right hon. Gentleman said, on the second reading, that he was prevented by the pressure of other business from dealing with the whole subject. Another Continuance Bill was passed in 1876. He hoped that the subject had been under the consideration of the Government; but if not, he hoped it would receive their earliest attention, as under the present temporary arrangement it was obvious that we must expect a very large annual increase in the Vote. He agreed with the Home Secretary that the whole subject of the police ought to be considered. The police force for the counties and boroughs in England and Scotland numbered 21,000 men, sub-divided into nearly 300 different armies, varying very considerably in numbers from one man upwards. Such a system did not tend to the efficiency of the police force. He did not want the right hon. Gentleman to adopt a system of centralization, and to convert the police forces of the country into a single army under his own control and patronage; but still he thought the Government might consider whether they could not advantageously amalgamate some of the small forces with the larger ones. He should like to know the course the Home Secretary intended to pursue this year with regard to the subvention, whether it was to be put on a more permanent footing, or whether they were to have another Suspensory Bill on the subject?
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONadmitted that the increases had been growing rapidly since the augmented Grant had been made by the Treasury to the police forces of the country; but although the increase in the present year amounted to £52,000, this was a decided diminution on the last year's Vote, which amounted to £74,000, and which was owing to the attempts made by his right hon. Friend to bring about something like a system. Until the passing of the Treasury Minute of August, 1876, the Home Secretary had no control over the numbers or the pay of the police forces in boroughs; but since then, in order to deal more satisfactorily with cases of increase, all the localities had been asked by circular to send in their estimates at a given time, so that they might be considered together. Any increase in the number of men and the pay was only sanctioned where it was shown to the entire satisfaction of the Home Secretary that both were absolutely necessary. As to the Bill regulating the subvention being simply an annual Bill, he agreed that the subject was one which required attention. There were a good many subjects, however—superannuation being one of them—which would have to be carefully considered before an alteration of the existing system could be made. With regard to the amalgamation of the small boroughs with the counties, every facility was at present given for it. He quite agreed that such amalgamation conduced to efficiency. Many small boroughs, which preferred to retain their independence, were not in receipt of the Government Grant. Now that the Report of the Select Committee on superannuation had been presented, one obstacle to dealing with the whole subject had been removed.
§ MR. WHITWELLhoped that the Home Office would give great and serious consideration to this enormous Vote, as the increase was due to the additional wages given to the police. He did not see why the increase in the number of the police should be arranged according to a hard-and-fast line, and that small country towns should be expected to maintain as large a force in proportion as mercantile towns. In that way they were induced, against their own convictions, to raise the strength in order to get the Government Grant.
§ MR. NORWOODsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) had disavowed centralization, though he appeared to have recommended it. If the Government attempted to take the police into their hands, as they had the prisons, they would find a very stout opposition from behind, if not from the front Opposition benches.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, so far as he had been able to calculate from the Returns prepared by the Home Secretary and from the Civil Service Estimates, the number of police throughout the Kingdom was upwards of 40,000, and the annual cost chargeable alone to the Exchequer at least £4,000,000. It was, however, impossible for any private Member of Parliament to make out, from the existing confusion in the Police Returns of the Kingdom, either the numbers, the grades, the pay, or the charge for the various forces of this kind. He had on several occasions suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State the importance of having a complete Return of all the Police and Constabulary in the United Kingdom, together with the grades, the pay, and various other charges, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to furnish a still more exact account than that now stated of the police force of the whole country.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSexpressed his willingness to do what he could to give the House the information desired by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down. With regard to the increase of the police, when the police system was first started it was left to the different jurisdictions voluntarily to provide the requisite number of police. Many of them, however, did not readily comply with the necessary requirements of their districts, and eventually the Act was made compulsory. Although a great number of local justices did their duty in providing the proper number of police according to the Act, there was considerable difficulty in pressing upon the various localities to raise the strength up to the standard which, in the opinion of the Home Office, was requisite for the particular districts concerned. But no hard-and-fast line was ever drawn, either by himself or by any of his Predecessors. The number of police depended upon 1366 the nature of the district, and the kind of population in it. Sir George Grey, he believed, thought one policeman to a thousand of the population might be considered as a limit; but he did not lay down any fixed rule on the subject. The pressure thus put upon localities by the Home Office under the Act accounted for the first increase that took place in the number of police. Two special safeguards were in operation. One was, that in order to obtain the Treasury subvention, the locality must have a certificate from the Home Secretary that the number of men in respect of whom the contribution was required was not in excess of the number needed for the maintenance of the peace of the district, and also that the scale of pay and the cost of clothing were reasonable and proper. In that way the efficiency of the police force was secured, without interfering with the freedom of the locality in governing the police. He thought that every possible facility should be given to local jurisdictions to amalgamate the forces of their districts, but he should be sorry to see anything like centralization established in a matter of this kind.
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he was glad to hear the disclaimer of the right hon. Gentleman as to centralization.
§ Dr. LUSHsaid, the regulation of the police was, on the whole, conducted with economy by the municipal authorities, and he did not think the Government subvention had increased local expenditure.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (8.) £340,085, to complete the sum for Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies.
§ MR. RYLANDSpointed out that the difference in expenditure on the various convict prisons was enormous, and it was very much higher than it ought to be. In the present Vote there was an estimate for new buildings and alterations of £22,720, £10,000 of which was to be expended at Millbank and Wormwood Scrubs. It seemed to him that in Government establishments or buildings, it was customary, as soon as a building was completed, for some one to suggest improvements which occasioned considerable outlay.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSreplied, that the estimate in the present Vote for new buildings was absolutely essential, 1367 as the hon. Gentleman would have seen if he had taken the trouble to go to Millbank.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (9.) £74,187, to complete the sum for County Prisons, &c.
§ (10.) £174,263, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools.
§ MR. RUSSELL GURNEYcalled attention to the case of young children under six years of age who did not under the present regulations receive the benefits of those industrial schools. He had a letter from a gentleman who was one of the highest authorities on that subject, and who spoke of a school under his charge in which there was not a child under six. He urged that if a small payment were made for such children a great number of them would be saved from a life of vice. He would, therefore, appeal to the Home Secretary whether there could not be some change made in the existing regulations, so as to prevent the mischief arising from leaving those young children to fall into evil ways, instead of sending them at a small expense to institutions where they would be brought up well and industriously.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSstated that the matter to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred was the subject of a correspondence which was still going on between the Treasury and the Home Office. He could not say more than that on the question at the present moment.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (11.) £21,344, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
§ MR. RYLANDS, who had given Notice that he would move the reduction of the Vote, said, that after the discussion which had occurred last Monday, when the Home Secretary held out an assurance that an investigation would be made into that establishment, he did not think it necessary on the present occasion to press for a reduction of that expenditure.
§ MR. RAMSAYsaid, he had drawn the attention of the Committee more than once to the great expenditure incurred at Broadmoor Asylum, because (he thought it was not desirable that they 1368 should make criminals of any class the pets of the State. The great expenditure at Broadmoor was, he believed, caused in some degree by the fact that a number of its inmates were not insane, but worked mischief when they had the opportunity. He should regret if it were supposed that in any notice he had taken of that institution and of the extravagant expenditure, as he regarded it, incurred for it, there was any censure upon the Council of Supervision. He acknowledged that the State was under obligations to those gentlemen for doing what they conceived to be their duty under the circumstances; but he thought, with all deference to them, that they took a mistaken view of their duty by the expenditure of so much of the public money on a very worthless part of the community.
§ MR. WALTER, as one of the Council of Supervision, whose acquittal by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) he was glad to hear, wished to say a few words with regard to the remarks which that hon. Gentleman had made. The hon. Member had condemned the expenditure of so much money on what he called a most worthless part of the community. Now, he would remind the hon. Member that Broadmoor was in no sense a prison. When it was first founded, it was expressly stated by the Lunacy Commissioners, that it was intended to be as much of a hospital and as little of a prison as possible; and as a matter of fact convict prisoners—that was to say, prisoners who were sent from convict prisons to Broadmoor in consequence of having become insane—had ceased to be sent there. Broadmoor was essentially a place for the reception of persons who, by the very hypothesis, were not criminal, but who had committed in a state of insanity, acts which would otherwise have been criminal. Therefore the policy of the State had been to treat those persons not as criminals, but as patients; and, unless that distinction was kept in view, they would argue that question on wrong premisses. He was glad that the Home Secretary had lately paid a visit to Broadmoor, because he felt sure that, unless people had seen the place, they could not form any idea of the expense necessary for its maintenance. It included an extensive acreage, with enormous buildings, the cost of maintaining which was extremely 1369 heavy. Then, again, the Staff of attendance employed there was necessarily large, entailing a cost of 45 per cent of the total expenditure. The attendance at Broadmoor were 20 per cent of the inmates; whereas, in ordinary county asylums, he believed the attendance were about 10 per cent. That arose from the immense proportion of male patients at Broadmoor. In pauper lunatic asylums the number of male patients was about the same as the number of female. The present estimate was considerably less than that of last year as that was less than that of the previous year. There had been a diminution since 1872 of about £6 a-head in the cost of the patients. An objection had been made to the dietary of the prisoners. Now, it was well-known to medical men that the recovery of these unfortunate people greatly depended upon good living. Broadmoor was one of the healthiest localities in which any class of patients could be placed. The mortality was only 2¼ per cent. There was no institution of that class in the Kingdom which could show anything like so small a mortality among the patients; in fact, it seemed to be a place to which persons who wished to live long should be sent. Would the Committee allow him to read a few figures to show the ratio of mortality and the cost of maintenance in four different asylums? In the City of London Asylum the dietary cost 6s. 11d. per head weekly, and the mortality was 4.89 per cent; in the lunatic asylum in the county of Bucks the dietary was 6s. 5¾d. per head weekly, and the mortality was 8.28 per cent; in Sussex Asylum the dietary was still lower—namely, 4s. 10⅝d. per head weekly, and the mortality 13.94 per cent; in Wilts, where the dietary was lowest—namely, 4s. 7¾d. per head weekly, the mortality rose to 16.96 per cent. Now, in Broadmoor, the dietary was about 5s. 9d. per head weekly, and the mortality about 2¼ per cent. That showed the importance of good dietary, if we cared for the health of these people. He could not give the hon. Member for Falkirk much hope of further reduction at Broadmoor. We could get rid of Broadmoor. We could introduce a totally new system for criminal lunatics But as long as this establishment was at Broadmoor he did not believe it would be possible materially to reduce the ex- 1370 penditure. If we sold Broadmoor, with the view of erecting an asylum elsewhere, we should have to do so at a great sacrifice, and he believed we should dearly purchase the change. It was a costly building in the first instance. It cost a great deal to put it into a decent state of repair, and considerably more to keep it in a complete state of repair. He should advise the Home Secretary to consider very well before he consented to any change of the asylum.
§ MR. FLOYERagreed with very much that his hon. Friend (Mr. Walter) had said as to Broadmoor. But as to the mortality at Broadmoor, according to the last Return to which he had access, he thought there were 20 deaths among a total of 500 patients, which would be a mortality of 4 per cent. That, however, was, no doubt, a very low mortality. He believed the average mortality in the pauper lunatic asylums in England was about 7 per cent. But he must remind his hon. Friend that the patients of Broadmoor hardly corresponded with the general class of patients in the county lunatic asylums. He agreed with his hon. Friend in thinking that good diet had a great advantage. Some years ago, attention was drawn to the high expenditure at Broadmoor Asylum, and he thought there was a little point on which the expenditure at present was rather large. He knew that some of the inmates required a strong hand. But there was one class of officers the same in Broadmoor as in other asylums—he meant the class of clerks and stewards. As to the management of stores at Broadmoor, there was a steward, an assistant storekeeper, and two assistant clerks, if not another clerk. At any rate, there were four persons to keep an account of the stores. He could not imagine how all these persons could be required to do that work. Probably, the accounts were kept by double entry. Now, in an asylum with which he was acquainted there was about the same number of patients as in Broadmoor, but the account of the stores was kept by one officer, and he was quite ready to show his books to any man in England. He (Mr. Floyer) did not know that there had been an error of half-a-crown in a period of 40 years. He would recommend that the accounts at Broadmoor should be kept in a simple way as at the institution with which he was acquainted. He perceived 1371 by the last Report of the Commissioners that out of the 500 inmates at Broadmoor 49, or 10 per cent, were confined to bed. That was much above the average in ordinary asylums. There appeared to be an unusually large number of inmates confined to bed at one time, and he thought this was a matter that should be inquired into. It was a delusion to suppose that these lunatics could be maintained at the same cost as ordinary lunatics were in county asylums, still he thought that some reduction might be made in the cost of the institution.
§ MR. WALTERexplained that the authorities at Broadmoor had to collect some £7,000 per annum from different Unions and parishes all through England, with which they were in connection, and that this work involved a very large amount of correspondence, which fully occupied the time of the clerks. The whole of the clerical work was performed at Broadmoor, and not in London, which accounted for the comparatively large sum which such work at that establishment cost.
§ MR. RAMSAYthought that the inmates at this institution, whether they were regarded as criminals or patients, cost more than was necessary. The lunatics at Perth did not cost half so much for maintenance.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (12.) £18,690, Miscellaneous Legal Charges.
§ (13.) £51,608, to complete the sum for the Lord Advocate and Criminal Proceedings, Scotland.
§ (14.) £45,898, to complete the sum for Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland.
§ MR. RAMSAYthought it was right that the attention of the Government should be directed to this Vote, and especially to that part of it which related to the salaries paid for the administration of justice in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was understood by some hon. Members of the House to have promised last year, that he would give lull consideration to the whole of the Scotch judicial system in order that economy might be secured. He (Mr. Ramsay) had already drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that they had a great many officials in Scotland. The Judges in their Sheriff Courts, who were rather 1372 underpaid than overpaid, were excessive in number, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had the power, if he would but exercise it, to reduce the number of these Judges. But, instead of reducing the number, they were asked some years ago to increase them. The right hon. Gentleman had sanctioned an increase in Glasgow at a very recent date, but there he (Mr. Ramsay) believed that it was needed. The Returns which were obtained of the duties performed by the different Sheriffs in Scotland must, he thought, have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman that some change was necessary, and he had hoped that before that time, he would have inaugurated something more comprehensive than anything that was provided for in the Sheriffs Courts Bill, which was now before Parliament. The subject was one of much importance to Scotland, and he could not therefore allow the Vote to pass in silence. He trusted that arrangements would be made by which, as he had said, greater economy might be secured for the future without any diminution of efficiency.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (15.) £25,614, to complete the sum for the Register House Departments, Edinburgh.
§ MR. M'LARENremarked that in this Vote were lumped together several subjects between which there was no necessary connection. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to the Vote for the General Register of Sasines. It appeared that the Estimate for the present year was £19,142; but hon. Members would see, by a foot-note, that the fees charged in that Office for the work done last year amounted to £28,968, so that the Government, while paying nothing for the services performed, had got nearly £10,000 of profit out of the title-deeds of owners of houses and lands in Scotland. He thought that was a very objectionable state of things. Moreover, it was in violation of an Act of Parliament. But what he wished particularly to call the attention of the Committee to was that, notwithstanding this enormous profit, which he held to be illegal in a certain sense, the clerks in the Office complained that they were overworked and underpaid, and that there was a want of management on the part of the heads of the Office, A printed paper had been circu- 1373 lated amongst hon. Members, being copy of a Memorial sent to the Treasury, setting forth the complaints of the clerks. Hon. Members would see that the first item in this branch of the Vote was £1,000 a-year for the Keeper of the General Register of Sasines. The clerks had complained to him that this gentleman, at the head of the Office, was not there above a quarter of an hour each day; that, practically, there was no control whatever over the Office; and that the consequence was that when promotions took place, the senior clerks were not always promoted. They complained, in fact, that there was a want of knowledge in the head, owing to the want of personal presence and superintendence, and that great injustice was thus done to the clerks. They complained in the Memorial that one clerk had been absent for three years; that his salary was continued to be paid as if he was an active man in the Office, and that the other clerks had to do all the work which he would have done had he been present, or which his successor, if appointed, would do. He wished the Secretary of the Treasury to understand that he was not going into the Department of Searches at all, which was a different department. The Lord Advocate had, he understood, that matter under his consideration, and he had no doubt that he would get it arranged in the proper way. He spoke of the clerks in the Register of Sasines Office. He was not going to move any reduction on the Vote at present; but he gave Notice that if the same state of things continued for another year, and he was spared to be there, he should move a great reduction in the salary of the head of the Department, who was now paid £1,000 a-year. That the public should pay this salary for attendance of not more than a quarter of an hour a-day was a most reprehensible thing in a public Department. That he was a man of great ability, he admitted; but if all the ability of Edinburgh was centred in him it would still be indefensible that he should not give sufficient time for the proper superintendence of an office where more than 100 clerks were employed. He thought it was the duty of the Government to see that justice was done to the clerks, and that the Office was put upon a more satisfactory footing.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the matter to which his hon. 1374 Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had called attention, was a grievance of very long standing. They, in Scotland, had set a very excellent example of establishing and maintaining a free registry of land; but he thought it was a hard thing that their position in that respect should be made the means of levying, in some sense, a special tax upon Scotland, inasmuch as the fees taken were much larger than the expenses incurred. He hoped that any surplus of receipts would be devoted to increasing the efficiency of the Department, and that indexes would be brought up to date, so that one might be able to lay his hands upon all the burdens which attached to any particular property in any part of Scotland.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had referred to a considerable balance which appeared upon the account as earned by these particular fees; but he must point out to him that the increase had been rapid within the last two or three years. There was a reduction of the fees charged in the Office in 1873. In 1873ߝ4 the income was £23,948; in 1874ߝ5 it was £25,409; and in 1875ߝ6 it was £28,968. There had, therefore, been a very large increase of fees suddenly; but it was not by any means certain that that increase would be maintained. He would take care that the statement which the hon. Member for Edinburgh had just made should be inquired into. It was the desire of the Government that the Office should be most efficiently maintained in every respect, and no effort would be spared to secure that result.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (16.) £15,671, to complete the sum for the Prisons and Judicial Statistics, Scotland.
§ (17.) £63,428, to complete the sum for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland.
§ (18.) £30,379, to complete the sum for the Court of Chancery, Ireland.
§ (19.) £21,126, to complete the sum for Common Law Courts, Ireland.
§ (20.) £6,768, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy, Ireland.
§ (21.) £8,488, to complete the sum for the Landed Estates Court, Ireland.
§ (22.) £8,548, to complete the sum for the Court of Probate, Ireland.
1375§ (23.) £1,200, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry, Ireland.
§ (24.) £13,628, to complete the sum for Registry of Deeds, Ireland.
§ (25.) £2,050, to complete the sum for Registry of Judgments, Ireland.
§ (26.) £97,391, to complete the sum for the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the case of "O'Byrne v. Hartington," arising out of a savage assault committed by the Metropolitan police upon peaceable citizens at a public meeting held in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, in the year 1871, called for the discussion of political grievances. The police were ordered to disperse the meeting, but the manner in which they were to disperse it was not indicated. The fact was, however, they were led by an official whose name had not transpired, and the manner in which they dispersed it was by bludgeoning the speakers and also the reporters, as well as a considerable number of the persons who came to listen to the speeches. If this attack was not directed by the noble Lord the Marquess of Hartington, he should like to know who the official was that ordered the police to make it, and whether he still held office and received pay under the Vote? If he did, he should move to reduce it by that amount.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that the transaction was one which had occurred before the present Government came into office; but a trial in connection with it, which lasted 41 days, in which the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Burke, the Under Secretary, Sir Henry Lake, the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Police, and two of its inspectors, were defendants, was held before the late Irish Chief Baron, and a verdict was returned for the defendants, which was confirmed on appeal. That, he thought, was the most satisfactory reply he could give to the hon. Gentleman, as it was clear from the decision of the Courts that the police had acted under lawful authority on the occasion to which he referred. The decision was given upon those grounds and was given upon much broader grounds in relation to the other defendants, which 1376 it was not necessary for him to enter into.
§ MR. BUTTdid not wish to say much upon the subject, but thought the Committee ought to know how the matter stood. It was six years ago that this unfortunate transaction took place. A number of people were assaulted by the police, and severely beaten. Two persons brought actions; and at the time there was such an intense feeling in the House of Commons on the subject, that it was promised there should be an investigation by the Government into the conduct of the police when the litigation was concluded. A sum of money exceeding £10,000 had been spent in defending the defendants in those actions. The first trial lasted upwards of 41 days, and in the middle of those 41 days the progress of the trial was interrupted for two months in consequence of the leading counsel having to go away. The jury found a verdict against the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), and decided that the meeting was legal, and that was sufficient to make them responsible for the acts of the police. That portion of the verdict could not be disturbed; but, notwithstanding, the inquiry had never been held, and the police had escaped on the ground that they had not received notice.
§ MR. CHARLES LEWISrose to Order. He asked whether the hon. and learned Member was entitled to go into this matter on a Vote for the salaries and expenses of the police officers?
§ MR. BUTTsaid, all he wished to say was, that anyone who read the evidence would be satisfied that the verdict of the jury was that the meeting was a legal one.
§ MR. LAWmaintained that neither the noble Lord the Marquess of Hartington nor Mr. Burke was responsible for what happened in the Phœnix Park in 1871.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, that whatever discredit attached to the affair rested upon the late Executive, not the present.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that no such occurrence could have taken place in England without some official 1377 being punished. If the police received no orders, then it was against the police the action should have been brought, and it would have been more candid for the noble Lord to have declared at once who were the real culprits. It was of importance that there should be an expression of the opinion of Irish Members on the subject. When he heard of the proceedings, he said if the law did not assert itself, blood would be shed, and within a few weeks of the occurrence two policemen were shot in the streets of Dublin, and everyone knew that that was because the Executive did not exert themselves. In that way two innocent men lost their lives.
§ MR. GRAY, while he acknowledged that the late Administration were to blame for what happened, could not agree that the present Government were altogether free from responsibility. Notwithstanding that, as had just been admitted by the right hon. and learned Attorney General, the Government had escaped upon a technical point, instead of acknowledging their moral responsibility, they still continued to defend actions brought against them for damages. In 1866 Lord Derby's Government obtained the legal opinion of Lord Cairns and others as to their right to disperse by force a meeting in Hyde Park, and that opinion was against such a right, even after giving notice. What notice was given people that they were to be illegally butchered that day? A few wretched handbills distributed the night before. The present Government shared the responsibility attaching to their Predecessors, inasmuch as they opposed actions brought to recover damages inflicted on poor persons, and carried appeals from Court to Court, using for the purpose the power of the purse and the public money without any permission from Parliament—using it, as be contended, immorally and improperly. It was true it was late to reopen the question six years after; but it must be remembered it was only this year they were able to discover how much money had been spent. It amounted to the enormous sum of £ 10,000. Where was that to stop? He hoped the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would bring the question up on Report, so that there should be a full discussion.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he was no supporter of the present Government. He 1378 was opposed to them in principle and in detail. [Laughter.] Yes, in detail, and he had much pleasure in voting against them that evening when they were in a minority. But he must admit, as he had said before, that whatever disgrace attached to the Phoenix Park riots did not attach to the present Government, who were bound to continue the actions commenced by their Predecessors.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he had desired to raise the whole question upon the previous Vote for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions; but he was precluded from doing so, from the fact that when the Vote was passed he was accidentally out of the House. He thought it was his duty to raise the question as regarded the conduct of the police upon that Vote. The right hon. and learned Attorney General had not yet answered the question, whether the superintendents of police, or whoever they were, who set this attack in motion upon unoffending citizens in Dublin were still in the force. If they were not in the force, he had no objection to the Vote passing.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that the riot had taken place six years ago, and unless a minute investigation were made, it would be impossible to say how many officers who took part in this affair W6re now in the force. The Reports had not been before him, and he was unable to answer the question.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, that in the Report for 1873 of the Public Accounts Committee, it was stated that the accountant of this force did not give the security which was required by Act of Parliament.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, be could not say off-hand whether the security had yet been given, but he should inquire into the matter.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, he would call attention to the matter on the Report of the Votes to the House.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (27.) £786,030, to complete the sum for the Constabulary, Ireland.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, there was an item of £11,000 odd for travelling expenses. He wished to know whether that sum included the travelling expenses of prisoners?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, if the prisoners were conveyed any 1379 distance the police were authorized to take conveyances, and those expenses were included.
§ CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, there were one or two matters of principle which he wished to draw attention to. The first was that in the Estimates the extra police and old stores were included in one item, so that it was impossible to find out what was the amount voted for either separately. He also thought that in the item of election disturbances it ought to be distinguished how much was for extra police being sent to elections, and how much for actual election disturbances. The third point was, that a sum of £194,868 for pensions was included in six or eight lines, so that it was impossible to find out what the amount of individual pensions was. He thought the money ought not to be voted next year unless more information was given.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHthought the object of the hon. and gallant Member was a really good one, and agreed with him that the receipts from extra police and old stores ought not to be included in one item. He did not know whether a distinction with respect to the election disturbance items could be made, but he would endeavour to do so if it was possible. With regard to the pensions, if the hon. and gallant Member's wish was carried out it would necessitate the printing of 5,000 or 6,000 names; but he thought that fuller information might be given with respect to the new pensions.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary had been most unusually uncandid. [Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to refer to the case of—
§ MR. DODSONrose to Order. The hon. Member had not withdrawn the expression.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he had not been asked to do so.
§ MR. CALLANsaid, he would have done so before had he been asked, but would not do so on the ruling of an ex-Chairman. He wished to know, what 1380 was the amount of the pension of the late Inspector General, Sir John Wood, in order to move the reduction of the Vote by that amount?
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, what was the reason for there being an increase of £19,000 this year for pensions?
§ MR. GRAYsaid, explanation should be given why, in counties where the force was not up to its normal strength, a charge for extra men was still imposed. It was believed in Ireland that in order to balance the increasing Vote for superannuation the Government contemplated imposing an additional charge for the maintenance of the barracks on the counties. It was also held that the real reason for Sir John Wood's retirement were the recent scandals in the force. He wished also to know why the Constabulary code of rules was kept a secret, while the Army regulations could be purchased for 1s.? He wished to know, if he moved for these regulations, would they be laid on the Table? If the payment of the backpay of a dismissed constable, afterwards re-instated, was included in this Estimate, why was it not done in an open and above-board manner, so that the House could understand, and hon. Members, if they desired it, challenge it?
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the back-pay was included in the Vote. As to the rules of the Constabulary force, they were now under revision, and it would therefore be especially inconvenient to lay them on the Table of the House. Even, however, if this were not the case, he did not think it would be well to lay those regulations on the Table. As to the retirement of Sir John Wood, it was owing to ill-health, and with a pension of £1,080. His retirement was in no way connected with matters which had been referred to. The arrangements for the extra charge to counties had not been altered since the present Government came into office.
§ MR. PARNELLasked, why a county should be charged for an extra force, when the extra force was not in the county?
§ MR. CALLANsaid, the explanations of the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary were so far satisfactory that he should not move to reduce the Vote. He would take that occasion to assure the right hon. Baronet that in using the 1381 word "uncandid," he did not mean to impute anything disrespectful.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he did not immediately stop the hon. Member when he used the words which he had employed, as he did not catch them. But his attention having been drawn to those words, he must say it was not in Order to use them.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, replying to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), explained the extra charge made to counties. Supposing a county were entitled to 100 men and there was an average number of 10 vacancies per 100 over the whole of Ireland, that would be a fair proportion of vacancies upon the whole county. Then, supposing the county required more men than 90 for its service, those men were sent and charged extra.
§ MR. GRAYwished it to be understood definitely and unequivocally, did the Government formally declare that the Constabulary rules were of such a nature that Government were afraid to lay them before the House? That was a serious question, and he wished a plain answer to it.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that he knew of no case of Constabulary rules being published, and he could not consent to such a proposal.
§ MR. O'DONNELLcomplained that the officers of the Constabulary were not appointed by open competition. The nominations were in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, and the Inspector General of Constabulary. That tended to perpetuate caste distinctions, as the nominations were practically limited to the friends of old officers and the hangers-on of the Castle circles. They would rather see the force officered entirely by Englishmen or Scotchmen under open competition than see it entirely officered by Irishmen upon the hugger-mugger system of nomination.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHhad stated, on a previous occasion, that he failed to see his way to the introduction of open competition.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (28.) £29,800, to complete the sum for Government Prisons, &c. Ireland.
§ In reply to Mr. PARNELL,
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he proposed that the same kind of in- 1382 quiry should be made into the circumstances of the Irish county prisons as the Home Secretary had undertaken to make in the case of the English prisons. As to the inspection of convict prisons, he had listened to the debate raised the other night by the hon. Gentleman, and he concurred fully in every word which fell from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cross) on that subject. He thought it would be well that there should be some such visitation of convict prisons instituted as his right hon. Friend had described; but the subject was not without its difficulties, and he doubted whether it would be possible to deal with the matter in the Irish Prisons Bill. He hoped, however, to deal with it as soon as his right hon. Friend and he were able to arrange some system which would apply to both countries.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (29.) £68,132, to complete the sum for County Prisons and Reformatories, Ireland.
§ MR. PARNELLcalled attention to the great injury which the Irish and Scotch taxpayers would suffer if the Irish and Scotch Prison Bills were not passed this Session.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHhoped that both of the Bills alluded to by the hon. Member for Meath would be passed, and that their progress through the House would not be in any way impeded.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (30.) £4,427, to complete the sum for the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland.
§ (31.) £51,666, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Charges, Ireland.
§ MR. CHARLES LEWIScomplained that in preparing these Estimates the small allowances to clerks of the peace under the Land Act of 1870 had been considerably reduced by the Treasury, without any opportunity being given to those gentlemen of being heard against reduction.
§ MR. BUTTsaid, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had failed to show that for the amount of work done under the Land Act of 1870, clerks of the peace would not be sufficiently remunerated by the reduced allowances.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the clerks of the peace had notice that the allowances were subject to revision in 1876, and he contended that the allowances, as revised, were ample for the work they had to do.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.