CLASS 2.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES or PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS. (Hansard, 18 March 1878)

§ LORD FRANCIS HERVEY
asked for some explanation of the payment to counsel who did not form part of the recognized staff of Parliamentary draftsmen. The Select Committees which sat two or three years ago on the Office of Parliamentary Counsel laid down that he should be responsible for all Bills drafted; but, since that time, it appeared that the principle then laid down had been departed from, and that large sums were now paid to counsel outside the Office for drafting Bills.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, it struck him that this was one of the most objectionable Votes in the Estimates. They paid under the Estimate £3,000 a-year to the 1545 Parliamentary counsel, £2,000 to an assistant counsel, £200 to a clerk, £150 to another clerk, and there were other small expenses—in all £5,500. They also took in the original Estimate for additional assistance, £1,700 as fees to counsel. The Government now asked them for £900 in addition; so that while the total expenditure under the Estimates for Parliamentary counsel, with clerks and expenses, came to £5,500, they actually were asked to pay, in addition to the original sum, £2,600 as fees for other counsel outside the Office, or an increase of one-half over the sum first asked for. This was most objectionable, and he felt quite unable to comprehend the meaning of it. The note put down was to the effect that a large additional expense outside the Office had been rendered necessary in consequence of the Bills introduced into Parliament during the Session of 1877. The Session was generally admitted to have been a barren one; but it certainly had not been barren in counsel's fees. Unless he had a satisfactory explanation, he should be inclined to move the reduction of the Vote.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, the explanation in this case was not a very difficult one. The Treasury was very conscious of the inconvenience that would result in having, in any case where it could be avoided, to go to counsel outside the recognized staff for assistance in preparing Bills. At] the same time, he must remind the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that although it was true that the number of Bills which passed last Session might not have equalled some more productive years, still a large number of Bills were prepared and laid on the Table which passed some of their stages, but which, owing to various circumstances, did not arrive at maturity. Those Bills had to be prepared by a draftsman. One of them—the Bankruptcy Bill—cost in preparation between £800 and £900, that measure having been most expensive on account of the many complicated provisions it contained. The Parliamentary counsel was obliged to employ outside assistance, partly from the strain in his own Office, and partly from the technical nature of the Bill. The same explanation applied to another Bill. The Treasury endeavoured, as far as possible, to see that the preparation of Bills connected with the 1546 various Departments was conducted through the Parliamentary Draftsman's Office; and an additional Minute had been recently circulated, calling attention to the constitution of the Office.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
objected to the amount of the Vote. He said he had some doubt as to the expediency of the Commission altogether, and he certainly saw no reason why the cost of it should go on increasing year by year, as it had done for some considerable time past.

§ MR. BRISTOWE
wished to know whether the Civil Service Examiners had been engaged elsewhere than in London? It was very desirable that facilities should be afforded to such young men as wished it to be examined locally; otherwise the expense would be so great that many men whom it would be advantageous to have in the Civil Service of the country would be debarred from presenting themselves for examination. If examinations took place in local centres, he should not think it would be necessary to maintain as large a staff of Examiners in London as might otherwise be necessary.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, the Examining Staff was not a permanent body, but were engaged with reference to the particular examinations which had from time to time to be held. Last year there was an increase in the number of candidates for the Army examinations, and a decrease in the others; but there was, at the same time, a costly examination held at the instance of the Privy Council Office. There was, he might say, an increasing disposition to hold the examinations locally, wherever practicable, on account of the mutual convenience; but it did not necessarily follow that the fact of their being so held would decrease the number of Examiners necessary to be engaged in London.

§ MR. O'DONNELL,
referring to the new regulations in regard to the examinations for the Indian Civil Service, said, 1547 the Civil Service might have conferred great advantages upon England and Scotland; but in Ireland the advantages had not been found to be nearly so great. In England and Scotland education was so widely diffused that almost all the places of honour and profit in the Civil Service were within the grasp of young men who might aspire to them; but in Ireland they had no forms of higher education really intended to reach the mass of the people. The consequence was that in Ireland the talent of the country was lying waste and unproductive; except in so far as some young men, who had not in Ireland the means of completing their education, had obtained as much as possible in their own country, and had then completed the work in England, before presenting themselves for examination. It was the fact, however, that certain recent regulations issued by the Government had shut out conscientious Roman Catholics from the benefits of the Indian Civil Service examinations. Down to a recent date Catholic students, educated in the Catholic University in Ireland, who passed the examination for the Indian Civil Service, became entitled on so passing to allowances of £150 for the first and £200 for the second year devoted to the study of the Native languages and other matters with which it was necessary for the student to become acquainted before he could usefully enter the Service. As he (Mr. O'Donnell) was informed, Her Majesty's Government, in cases where Catholic students come up for examination, refused to grant them the ordinary sustenance allowance which was still granted to the non-Catholic persuasion, which system he did not think just. A young Irishman had no chance of entering the India Civil Service unless he abandoned Catholic University teaching, and accepted that of one of the mixed Universities in England. Oxford and Cambridge were, however, considered by no means advantageous in a Catholic point of view. It thus happened that Catholic students who passed the Indian Civil Service examination would be deprived of the allowance given to their Protestant compeers unless they went to Universities in England and Ireland which were contrary to their religious convictions. He could not see that the Civil Service Commission had claims 1548 upon the support of Irishmen, seeing that its operation was unfairly worked for the benefit of one class of Her Majesty's servants and the disadvantage of another. He should be glad to hear that he was misinformed; but he was afraid that matters stood as he had been informed.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
said, he wished for some explanation of the great increase in the charge for pauper lunatics. The original estimate was £470,000; the present additional sum required was £50,412. The foot-note to the Vote was a somewhat curious one, and required that something should be said concerning it. The note was as follows:— The number of pauper lunatics in respect of whose maintenance the grant of 4s. a week is made proved much higher than had been expected in consequence, to a considerable extent, of the additional asylum accommodation which had become available. The number of pauper lunatics added was 5,000, and he should like to know where those people were before the "additional asylum accommodation" was provided; because it might be a question as to whether they came, with strict propriety, under the description of pauper lunatics.

§ MR. BRISTOWE
said, there had been an extraordinary increase of this Vote in recent years, and the fact was not explained to his satisfaction by the foot-note, which stated that "it is also necessary to provide for certain Arrear Charges properly belonging to 1876–7."

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, he could not wonder that an explanation of the Vote should be asked, although the growth of the Vote was both natural and unavoidable. The excess could not, however, have been anticipated, because the repayments in respect to pauper lunatics were not made until the completion of the half-yearly audit, which began shortly after Michaelmas, and was not completed so as to become a charge upon the Department until Lady Day, or even later than that, in the 1549 following year. Many of the lunatics now chargeable were in private houses before they entered the asylums as pauper lunatics. His hon. and gallant Friend was probably aware that a very large asylum was opened last year in the county of Middlesex, capable of accommodating 1,700 patients. Another large asylum was opened in Lancashire. All these additions to the number of asylums came suddenly on the Department. They could not be known beforehand, inasmuch as the Department had no means of ascertaining what additional accommodation was about to be provided by counties and boroughs. When, however, new asylums were erected, lunatics were placed in them by the operation of the law, and the policy of Parliament most distinctly had been to relieve the ratepayers somewhat from the higher and excessive charge which the maintenance of lunatics in asylums undoubtedly entailed. It was said that many of the inmates of lunatic asylums were persons who ought not to be there at all. Well, that had been found out too late. The asylums had been built under the provisions of Acts of Parliament, and the policy of the Commissioners for many years had been to get the lunatics maintained in these asylums, and not to allow them to be kept either in the workhouses or amongst their friends at home. That being so, the asylums became full, and then it was discovered that many of the chronic and imbecile cases in the asylums might perhaps as well have been out of the asylums, if there were other proper places for them. The County Government Bill, introduced by him in the present Session, contained provisions for the cheaper maintenance of lunatics of this kind, and he believed that that would prove to be one of the most useful parts of the measure. During a series of years, as his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had found, there had been a large increase in the total number of pauper lunatics maintained in asylums; and as from time to time new asylums were opened, a still larger number of cases would be swept in, and that, of course, must cause a further increase in the Vote. There was no doubt, however, that the whole of this money-was properly expended, and no subventions were paid till after the accounts had been duly audited.

§ MR. WHITWELL
could not help thinking that, in consequence of the grant of 4s. per head, there were in the lunatic asylums a great number of cases which ought not to be there. It was necessary, by some means or other, to sift the cases; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to meet this difficulty before another 4s. per head was granted; for,, otherwise, Parliament must insist that a cheaper provision should be made for lunatics. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the County Government Bill would meet the case to a very considerable extent, and he had no doubt that counties would be willing to avail themselves of that clause.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
thought there had been a very great disposition to sweep into lunatic asylums and to treat scientifically a class of people who might very well be retained in their own homes. He came from a county—namely, Fife—which was supposed to be peculiarly lunatic. For a long time past he had seen lunatic asylums growing and growing; but he must say his own impression was that a very large proportion of those people were those who in Scotland were called "Fifeish," and need not be treated scientifically in asylums.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, that in the county with which he was connected there was a complaint that the subvention of 4s. per head in the case of lunatics resulted in persons being sent to the asylums who ought not to be placed there. He was very glad the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had brought this matter under the attention of the Committee; because he had a strong impression that the rates were increasing in volume, and he doubted very much whether the country got a proper return for the expenditure. He hoped that the Government would bear this in mind, and that they would not be so ready as they had hitherto been to grant subventions which tended to very heavy expenditure.

§ MR. RAMSAY
thought the Report of the Select Committee on Lunacy, which was presented last Session, should satisfy hon. Gentlemen that there was very little ground for believing that the people of this country were becoming lunatics in greater numbers than they did formerly. At the beginning of the pre- 1551 sent century they had few places for the confinement of persons afflicted with mental disease. But since Parliament had seen fit that asylums should be provided, it was but natural that the relatives of persons suffering from mental disease should take advantage of those institutions, and that Poor Law Guardians should remove lunatics from the wards of workhouses. Those circumstances were the chief cause of the apparent increase in the number of lunatics.

MR. GOLDSMID
observed that, at all events, there was an increase in the number of pauper lunatics. He was visitor of the pauper lunatic asylum in the county of Kent for several years, and he might mention that during the last few years the county had been obliged to build a very large additional asylum. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War resided in that part of the county, and probably knew something about it. Undoubtedly, it was a fact that the number of pauper lunatics had very largely increased, and that it was still on the increase. It had been alleged that the great amount of railway travelling was one cause of lunacy; but, at all events, that did not affect the pauper class, and it remained for the medical faculty to find out the reason for the increase. He could not join his hon. Friend opposite in deploring the large addition of persons in the asylums; because, in his judgment, it was much better that lunatics should be under public supervision, instead of being kept in private houses of the smallest description, where they could not be properly looked after, and where they, by their presence, would often be doing serious injury to the other members of the family. For that reason, he was desirous that this sum should be voted.

§ MR. FLOYER
thought that a certain class of lunatics might be maintained at a cheaper rate in detached portions of the asylum buildings set apart for their reception. The right hon. Gentleman had not shown sufficient grounds for his proposal that a considerable addition should be made to the number of lunatics sent to workhouses.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
denied that he had ever advocated anything of the sort. He had advocated sending them to their imbecile asylums.

§ MR. VANS AGNEW,
having had experience in the management of a large lunatic asylum, wished to point out that asylums were maintained for two objects. The first was to cure persons mentally diseased, and he did not think the country would grudge the expenditure of money when it was likely to restore the valuable gift of reason to those who were unhappily bereft of it. A considerable percentage of the patients were cured; but a large class who were not cured drifted into what might be called chronic lunacy. The latter class, he thought, might be drafted into other houses maintained on a less expensive scale than the lunatic asylums. Whether such houses should be separate buildings or attached to the lunatic asylums was a matter of minor consideration. The point he wished to bring before the Committee was that the chief function of asylums was the cure of lunacy, and not the detention of those who were incurable.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
said, the House was first told that the Mint was to be removed to a spot near White-friars, and next that it was to be removed to a place near the Savoy. He wished to know whether it was intended to remove the Mint; and, if so, where it was to be removed to?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
was afraid he could not give his hon. and learned Friend, at this moment, the information he required. The subject was under consideration.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, one item in the Vote was for "loss on worn silver coin withdrawn from circulation," and it was said that "more worn silver coin had been sent in from the Colonies than had been anticipated." Was it to be understood that this country was to bear the loss on the wear of silver coin in the Colonies? In some Colonies the dollar was the current silver coin, while other Colonies—notably Australia—used the shilling, and had a Mint of their own. He wanted to know whether this country was to bear the expense of re-coining the dollar or the shilling, where there was a Colonial Mint? Considering the present state of 1553 the silver question, the charge might become a very large one indeed in the course of a few years.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
requested the right hon. Gentleman to repeat his question on some other occasion. He could not give an answer off-hand.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, that a part of the Vote was for "otherlegal charges," and the Vote explained that the excess was caused by the heavy expenses of the Wigan Church case. Now, he complained that the Public Works Loan Commissioners had not exercised sufficient diligence in the discharge of their duties in lending money on the security of the Wigan church rates. The country had already lost a large sum, and being further called on to vote a considerable sum for legal expenses incurred from insufficient security having been taken, he pressed the Government to postpone the Vote until explanatory Papers had been placed upon the Table.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
admitted that the result of the litigation had not been satisfactory; but the Government had no alternative but to adopt the course they recommended to the Committee.

§ MR. RYLANDS
hoped the Vote would not be pressed until the Papers referred to had been produced.

§ MR. RAMSAY
considered the figures inserted in the Vote were misleading, and required explanation.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, with regard to the Wigan Church case, no doubt the result had not been, on the whole, satisfactory. Still, it was not a matter for which either the Treasury or the Government could be held responsible. In 1870 the Public Works Loan Commissioners took proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench for the recovery of the debt due in respect to the Church, and they got a verdict; but this verdict was subsequently reversed.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
asked that the Vote might be postponed until they had before them all the Papers relating to the matter. He com- 1554 plained of the manner in which many of those loans were obtained; and it was desirable there should be the utmost publicity given to all the facts connected with them. The detailed accounts of all the loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners were seen to be in arrears for more than seven years. It was time that full and complete accounts should be rendered. Indeed, it would be easy for the Public Works Loan Commissioners to issue an annual statement of all the loans outstanding.

§ MR. RYLANDS
described this loan as a public scandal, and said it had long been viewed in that light by the people of Wigan. The fact was that the Church authorities in Wigan obtained several thousand pounds from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and the Commissioners had incurred heavy legal charges in endeavouring to get the money back. They had failed to obtain repayment of the money, though they had appealed to a Court of Law; and it appeared to him the whole business was a blunder on the part of the Commissioners. No doubt the Secretary to the Treasury was correct when he said the Government could not be blamed for the prolonged litigation which had taken place; but the Committee had a right to have all the facts before it, prior to being asked to vote this money. He should not have spoken with so much confidence on this subject had it not been for the fact that a year or two ago a clergyman in Wigan sent him an account of the proceedings, and characterized them as a public scandal, to which attention ought to be drawn. The Church authorities got hold of several thousand pounds, and the authorities from whom they obtained it were unable to get it back again. What the Church authorities in Wigan ought to have done was to have raised the money in some manner or other, in order to prevent the legal proceedings which had taken place.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, the Vote they were now asked for was not money advanced to the Church, but money expended in legal proceedings trying to get the other amount back again. They had not only lost the money which was originally advanced, but the amount now objected to, which had been expended in trying to get the other sum back. No doubt the Treasury had done their duty; and he 1555 did not see how they could save the money if they postponed the Vote.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
contended what the Public Works Loan Commissioners had done formed a very bad precedent, and that they ought to be put in possession of all the Papers, and have further time for discussion before passing the Vote.

§ MR. RAMSAY
considered that there was a discrepancy in the Vote which had not been explained.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
admitted that it might have been more correct to have stated the Vote in a different form; but the whole of these expenses had arisen out of proceedings which the Public Works Loan Commissioners thought it necessary to institute, and those proceedings had been defeated by the decisions of the Courts of Law. MR. RAMSAY said, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman admitted the Estimate might have been more correctly stated, he should withdraw any further opposition.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
Mr. Raikes, I propose to withdraw this Vote. The money is not at present required. It was put into the Estimates in order to afford hon. Members an opportunity of discussing the subject of a provisional arrangement entered into between the Treasury and Mr. Hansard with a view to improve the report of our debates; but, as I stated in answer to the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) at an earlier period of the evening, I think it will be convenient that this arrangement should be referred to a Select Committee. It will, therefore, probably be the most convenient course to take any discussion which may be desired on the appointment of the Committee. I say this the more because we are now in a difficult position as regards time; and I must point out that unless we are able to finish these Estimates to-night—which I am afraid will be rather difficult—we shall be obliged to ask the House to sit 1556 to-morrow morning. Possibly, we may even then be in some difficulty in getting through the Estimates this week. In order to get the Appropriation Act for these Supplemental Estimates passed before the close of the financial year, it will be necessary we should get the Vote passed, and, if possible, reported by Saturday. Thursday—the next Government night—has been promised long since to the Scotch Members for the discussion on the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill, and I cannot propose to disturb that arrangement. Therefore, if we are not able to finish the Estimates to-night, I must ask the House to sit to-morrow morning. I do not wish to occupy further time; but I withdraw the Vote now before the Committee.

MR. J. COWEN
said, he understood the arrangement which had been entered into was this—that Mr. Hansard was to have £3,000 for the purpose of publishing extended Reports of the proceedings of the House during the meetings in Committee and late at night.

§ MR. MUNTZ
rose to Order. There was no Motion before the Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer having withdrawn the Vote.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member (Mr. J. Cowen) is perfectly in Order, because the Question before the Committee is that the Vote be withdrawn.

Mr. J. COWEN
said, he was not accustomed to speak without having something to say; and, if the hon. Gentleman would only wait, he would find he had something to state which was quite appropriate to the Motion before the Committee. As he understood, the Government had promised to give Mr. Hansard £3,000. Now, in consequence of that promise, Mr. Hansard had entered into certain engagements in respect to reporting. The question he (Mr. J. Cowen) desired to ask was whether, now that the Government proposed to withdraw this Vote, the engagement with Mr. Hansard would be fulfilled? If that engagement was not carried out, it must place Mr. Hansard in an extremely unpleasant and disadvantageous position.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
The arrangement entered into with Mr. Hansard is a provisional one, and for the remainder of the financial year, which ends on the 31st of March. It was also to be subject to the approval 1557 of the House. I hope there will be no difficulty in meeting the claim of Mr. Hansard.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
was very sorry the right hon. Gentleman had been obliged to withdraw this matter to-night. In his opinion, it was a very good proposition; and, if Mr. Hansard had made arrangements to carry on this reporting, it was scarcely fair to withdraw the Vote in this way. Let them be fair to Mr. Hansard; and, if the Vote was not to be proceeded with to-night, the sooner it was brought forward again the better. Many hon. Gentlemen had come down to the House to support this Vote, and they had been placed in rather awkward circumstances by its having been withdrawn.

§ MR. SANDFORD
said, he understood that on the appointment of the Committee the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow the discussion on the subject to take place.

§ Mr. O'DONNELL
did not understand and required explanation as regarded two matters mentioned in the Vote. First, there was an item of £107 for drafting a Bill to amend the law relating to the registration of assurances in Ireland; and, in the second place, £300 was charged for travelling expenses. Perhaps this latter sum had something to do with the late alteration in the personnel of the Chief Secretary's Office; but, as a rule, he thought too much expense was incurred in travelling between Dublin and London. It was certainly one of the disadvantages of having the nominal seat of Government in Dublin and the real seat of Government in London; but these repeated journeys had to be made by officials who looked upon them, no doubt, as very pleasant trips at the expense of the country. In these days of the telegraph and the Post Office, he considered they might well be able to cut down this item of expenditure.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, it was absolutely necessary that a certain number of journeys should be made between the Government Offices in Dublin and London, and this number must vary 1558 from year to year. As to the charge for drafting the Bill for the Registration of Assurances, it was prepared by a gentleman with eminent qualifications for the task. After it had been very fully gone into, a Royal Commission was appointed to consider the whole matter, and the Bill would be of use to that Commission.