CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE. (Hansard, 30 May 1878)

§ MR. GREGORY
said, he had given Notice of opposition to the item for the London Bankruptcy Court; but he thought it would be more convenient if he brought up the subject on the second reading of the Bankruptcy Bill. His object in giving Notice to reduce the Estimates was to protest against the charge for that Court; but he would not bring the question forward now. He would reserve anything he had to say till the time he had mentioned.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, there was an increase in the cost of criminal prosecutions of £4,500. He should like to know on what principle these prosecutions were conducted? He should like to know, also, if the cost of the prosecution in the Bradlaugh case was included in the Vote, and, if so, upon what principle that cost was incurred, as the offence was not a police offence?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
explained, that these prosecutions were conducted by the Solicitor to the Treasury at the instance of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The case was submitted for the consideration of the head of the Department before the Solicitor General took it up, and nothing was done without the approval of the head of the Department. In some cases, it was for the public interest that the prosecution should be conducted by the Solicitor to the Treasury, and in others, from the magnitude of the case, it was impossible for it to proceed unless it were taken up by Government.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
remarked that something might surely be done to curtail the length of these trials which often extended over 20 or 30 days. Surely the interminable speeches of counsel, for instance, could be cut down.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
said, the Government were not responsible for the Bradlaugh case. That was a prosecution by the City authorities, and the Government were in no way concerned in it. Undoubtedly, the detective case did last for a long time before the police magistrate, but that was not the fault of the prosecution. The counsel for the defence cross-examined the witnesses at enormous length, and so very much prolonged the proceedings. So far as he was aware, no time was wasted in these trials.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
said, he was not alluding to the trial of the detectives, but to another case which was heard at the Old Bailey.

§ MR. MACDONALD
said, he found that a clerk in these Estimates was paid £50 under one head, and £15 under another. He thought the Committee should put a stop to such a system. Would any man in business pay his clerks in such a way?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, it was found more advisable in cases like the one referred to, to select a clerk in the office, and let him do the extra work required. It was like a case where a clerk took charge of the office during the absence of its head, and received additional pay for that.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, under section B, head G, there was a charge of £500 as paid in rewards. He should like to know whether that was really all that was paid for rewards in connection with the administration of justice in this country? It seemed to him rather a small sum, considering the area over which the administration of justice extended in this country. He thought the amount must be supplemented by money from some other source.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, there was a constant tendency to increase in this Vote. The gentleman in the service of the Crown appeared to be too much for the Members of that House. For instance, they now paid large salaries to the Law Officers; but that did not seem to diminish the expenses of the Vote.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, formerly the Law Officers were paid by fees; but that had recently boon changed. The fees were now paid into the Exchequer, and the Law Officers received a salary. As to the Advocate General, he believed that an arrangement had also been come to recently with reference to that matter.

MR. GORST
thought such an explanation would be exceedingly valuable if the hon. Baronet had told them how much the cash payments into the Exchequer had been; but, as it was, they did not know at all how they stood. As to the Advocate General, he should like to know if there had been an inquiry into the proceeds of his office, on which to base the salary?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, the subject was one which had occupied 943 his personal attention since he had been in his present Office. The custom hitherto prevailing had been for each Department to pay its extra receipts into the Exchequer, and the amount had been explained in a note at the foot of the Vote. That amount was always very nearly accurate, but not always a guide for the future. Instead of that speculative amount, he thought it would be better, in future, so to arrange the accounts that the actual amount should appear in the Vote. Each Department would then show, on the face of its Estimate, what were its extra receipts as compared with its gross expenditure.

§ MR. W. M. TORRENS
wished, in justice to the Government, to bear his testimony to the fact that one item in the Vote had been increased from no fault of the Government, but entirely owing to the passage of a Bill through Parliament which was felt to remove a great and grievous hardship. The fact that the Queen's Proctor was at liberty to bring intervening suits in the Divorce Court, the costs of which, if they failed, were not liable to be paid by the Crown, was felt by both Houses of Parliament to be a system which should not be allowed to continue. The performance of the duties of the office by the Solicitor to the Treasury entailed a certain amount of extra expense in that Department.

§ MR. GREGORY
thought the permanent staff of the office too large, and trusted the Secretary to the Treasury would look into the matter. Twenty-seven appeared to him to be a large staff for the work which was done, but that number had been increased to 29. There was an item of £450 for writers alone.

MR. GORST
wished to ask a question of the Government, in reference to the item for the repayment to counties and boroughs for their criminal prosecutions. It would, no doubt, be in the recollection of the House, that prior to the present Government coming into Office, a reduction was made in the amount paid for the expenses of criminal prosecutions, which threw upon the ratepayers of the counties and boroughs a burden which they thought 944 an unjust one. Many Members of the present Government on that occasion distinguished themselves by the eloquence with which they brought this subject under the notice of the House. When they came into Office, one of the first things they did was to initiate a new system, by which, instead of repaying the counties and boroughs the actual cost incurred, they paid for the prosecutions which took place on a sort of computed average cost. This arrangement was followed by discussions in the House, in which it was pointed out that this rule, so far from removing, really perpetuated, the injustice which had been denounced, and that it inflicted on the counties and boroughs still greater losses. He had never seen a better instance than this of the power of the permanent officials. Here was a Government led by the officials in the Departments into doing the very thing they had denounced when in Opposition. This scheme was established for three years, and it was promised by the Government that the matter should be re-considered in the light of experience, and that a fair settlement of the question should be arrived at. But, under this average scheme, what was foretold had actually come to pass—the counties and boroughs had lost far more money than was lost under the unjust scale of the previous Government. Deputations from almost every county and borough in the Kingdom had waited on the Predecessor of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, and they had represented to him the loss which was incurred, and the unjust burdens which were laid upon the ratepayers by the operation of this scheme. He had the honour of being present at one of these deputations himself, and the hardship was admitted, the Secretary to the Treasury promising that the subject should receive the consideration of the Government, and that a fair settlement should be arrived at. He wished to ask the hon. Baronet whether, having had all these figures placed before him, and it having been proved that the counties and boroughs were mulcted in far greater sums than were entailed upon them under the previous scheme, the Government were prepared to propose any fresh arrangement for the next three years?

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, this was the second time the hon. and learned Member had brought this 945 question forward, and he earnestly hoped the Government would not give way. He could not agree that it was advisable to allow the counties and boroughs to make what arrangement they pleased in regard to criminal prosecutions. In his opinion, the Government was perfectly right in maintaining a check over this expenditure. It might, perhaps, be said that the auditor was not competent to perform the duties, but that was a question of administration, and it would not be difficult to find someone who was; but he appealed to the Government to maintain the present system.

§ MR. WHITWELL
thought his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) had somewhat misunderstood the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Gorst), who did not so much wish that these charges should be increased, as to know whether it was the intention of the Government to keep to the old average. He knew several counties in which the average was by no means a fair basis for succeeding years; and, for his part, he should be much better pleased to see things go on as they were before, than to see the average principle maintained.

§ MR. D. DAVIES
asked how the increase of £700 in the travelling expenses of Clerks of Assizes was to be accounted for?

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, it would be in the recollection of the Committee that a few years ago an important Commission was appointed to inquire into the working of the administrative departments of the Courts of Justice. That Commission reported in 1874; but it was said that, owing to the then recent passing of the Judicature Act, it was not thought desirable to make the changes which that Commission recommended until there had been an opportunity for fully considering the effect of the new Act. He could not observe in the Estimates for the year that there was any apparent result from the labours of that Commission. He thought it very desirable that the Committee should be informed what—if any—progress had been made in the adoption of the recommendations of that Commission.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, the noble Lord had anticipated the observation he was about to make. He had more than once asked in the House what were the duties of the Clerks of Assize, because, 946 from his knowledge of them, they were very light indeed. He observed in the Vote that there were several instances in which they acted as Clerks of Arraigns. The Clerk of Assize of the South-Eastern District received £1,500 a-year as Clerk of the Central Criminal Court. He dared say that £1,500 a-year was well earned; but why he should receive £500 a-year as Clerk of Assize he could not understand. He trusted they would have some hope held out by the Government that they would use their influence for the reduction of these offices, either by the transference of their duties to the Judges Marshal, or to the clerks who attended the Judge on Circuit.

§ MR. MACDONALD
said, he observed an item of £180 for salary to the Auditor of Welsh Sheriffs' accounts, who was an officer who also drew a salary from the Land Revenue Department as Receiver of Crown Rents, and who received £100 a-year from the Superannuation Vote. He wished to ask, whether this gentleman was not in practice as a public rent collector? It occurred to him that this was another of those jobs in which one person was allowed to hold so many situations.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, in answer first of all to the question of the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish), the Report of the Commission to which he had referred was now under the consideration of the Treasury, who would carry out its recommendations as the offices fell vacant, or as there were opportunities for re-organization. In regard to the Clerks of Assize, he would remind his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) that the Commission which sat in 1868 recommended that the salaries of these officers should be materially reduced; and in several instances, where the opportunity had arisen, that had been done. The Clerk of Assize was an important officer, and one to whose office considerable importance was attached in the country. The increase in the travelling allowances to the Clerks of Assize had arisen in consequence of the additional Assize which had been held under the Winter Assize Act. In regard to the salary of the Auditor of the Welsh Sheriffs' accounts, that work, of course, did not occupy the whole of the officer's time, and he was the Receiver of Crown Rents, deriving his 947 salary from the Land Revenue Department. The £100 a-year superannuation allowance paid to him was in respect of compensation for the loss of an office. In reference to the question which had been raised by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), it appeared that, in consequence of the very numerous complaints as to the mode in which the costs of criminal prosecutions were taxed, a system was adopted in 1874, by which they were paid on the average of the three preceding years, to hold good for the following three years. That three years expired in 1877, and when he had just come into Office, he found the Papers which had been laid before his Predecessor on this point. The Examiners of Criminal Accounts were now considering the revision of this scale, and the average would now be taken from the expiration of the first three years on which the previous average was struck, so that the counties and boroughs would have the full benefit of any alteration which had taken place,

§ MR. CHILDERS
would wish to supplement the statement of his noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish) with reference to the history of the appointment of the Royal Commission on the administrative departments of the Law Courts. There were considerable debates in the House a few years ago on what appeared to be the unduly large charge for these and similar purposes. A Committee, over which he had the honour to preside, was appointed, and before them was disclosed such a gross system of waste and extravagance in the legal department that they recommended the appointment of a Royal Commission. The Members of the Royal Commission comprised a noble Lord of great administrative experience, one of the Barons of the Exchequer, some of the most experienced officials connected with the Treasury and spending departments; and after a very careful inquiry, which extended over two years, they drew up and presented to Parliament a Report, with respect to the greater part of which they were absolutely unanimous. On the question of the necessity for reorganization, there was no question between them. For instance, they dealt very fully with the question of Clerks of Assize, which involved an expenditure of 948 about £20,000 a-year, and recommended not that reforms should be only effected as vacancies arose, but that the offices as now constituted should be altogether abolished, so that an entirely new system might be established, through the agency of a central office in London, which would result not only in considerable economy, but to greater efficiency in the service. He thought the Committee was clearly entitled to ask why a Report of the kind which he had described made four Sessions ago, after an inquiry which extended over two years, had not been acted upon. Surely, four years was a sufficient time in which to deal with those recommendations of a Royal Commission on which there was no difference of opinion. He hoped there would be no mere casual reform, but a general adoption of the practical and valuable recommendations of the Commission, so as to make the reform thorough and complete, and to produce greater efficiency, coupled with economy.

§ MR. MACDONALD
said, the question he put had not been answered by the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury. His question was, not whether the Auditor of the Welsh Accounts held another office of profit, and received a pension on account of a third which he had previously held, but whether he had still sufficient time on his hands to serve the public in another capacity?

§ MR. D. DAVIES
pointed out that the Secretary to the Treasury had not explained to him how it arose that, while the amount for the salaries of clerks had only increased by about 3 per cent, the increase in the travelling expenses was about 20 per cent.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
explained that the increase in the travelling expenses was owing to the fact that an additional Assize was how held under the provisions of the Judicature Act. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), the answer was that the duties performed by the gentleman in question were such as could only be performed by someone specially fitted for the work, and were not sufficient to justify the payment of a salary which should entitle the Government to demand the exclusive services of the holder of the office. It was, therefore, thought best 949 to allow that gentleman to fill another office, the pay from which provided him with a sufficient income in connection with a superannuation which he enjoyed. By this means the country saved a considerable sum of money, and secured greater efficiency in the public service. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), he had to say that the Report of the Royal Commission was, without doubt, a very valuable document, and was being carefully considered by the Treasury; but reforms of the kind suggested in the Report were not of a kind to be made in a day in so large a Department of the public service as that to which the Report referred. He had only been in Office a short time, and the matter had not been dealt with by him officially; but he could assure the Committee that it was the desire of the Treasury to deal with the question, and it would be no fault of theirs if the reforms which were recommended were not carried into effect.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, that on former occasions, when he had brought this question before the House, he had been told that the recommendations of the Committee could not be carried out until experience had been had of the working of the Judicature Act. He hoped that some information would be given at once as to the intentions of the Government.

§ MR. MACDONALD
repeated that his question had not been answered. What he wanted to know was, whether this gentleman who held two offices under the Crown, and enjoyed a superannuation allowance on account of another office which he had formerly held, was also enabled to carry on other employments as a collector of accounts for all and sundry the other private persons who might choose to employ him?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
replied, that the official referred to received payment for the duties which he was engaged to perform, and did perform. He knew nothing as to what the gentleman did with any spare time that he might have on his hands.

§ MR. RYLANDS
thought the question which had been asked by his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) ought not to be passed over so lightly as it had been. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would remember 950 that, during the time of Office of a former Government, a Committee was appointed to consider the question of Civil Service Expenditure. He had the honour of sitting on that Committee, in company with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—who was not then in Office—and other distinguished Members of the House. The Committee sat during the whole of one Session, and the Inquiry they made resulted in information of the greatest possible value and interest being elicited. At the end of the Session the Committee suggested, as they had not inquired fully into the matters referred to them, that they should be re-appointed, with a view to continuing their inquiry in the following Session. The Government refused to re-appoint the Committee; but, upon their recommendation, appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into one of the branches of the matter referred to them—namely, the expenditure connected with the Law Courts and the Legal Departments of the Government. The Commission sat, and, having completed their inquiry, made a Report; but that Report, as well as the Report of the Committee which sat in 1873, had up to the present been treated as so much waste-paper, and the economies, which might have been secured, at the latest, three years ago, seemed to be as far off as ever from accomplishment. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had said that reforms of that kind could not be effected in a moment; but, surely, the five years which had elapsed since the appointment of the Committee on whose Report the Royal Commission was appointed, had afforded a sufficient time for something to be done? He certainly thought that, at any rate, the Committee was entitled to ask for the re-appointment of the original Committee, or the appointment of a new one, in order to the resumption of the work which was interrupted on a former occasion.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, that, having been up to within a very short time intimately connected with the work of the Treasury, he thought himself entitled, if not bound, to say a few words on the question before the Committee. No one could deny that the Report of the Royal Commission was a most important and valuable one; but, as the noble Lord opposite (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had remarked, it was necessary 951 that there should be some two or three years' experience of the working of the Judicature Acts before effect could be given to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission. It was intended, after those two years had expired, to appoint a small Departmental Committee, which should inquire and report as to the working of the Acts. That Committee, he believed, had not yet been appointed; but it was still the intention of the Government to appoint it. It might not be found possible to effect all the economies that were desired; but the wishes of the Government tended solely in that direction, and they would, as far as possible, carry out such of the recommendations of the Royal Commission as were likely to bring about the necessary reforms.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, he was much pleased with the assurance on the part of the Government that the Report of the Royal Commission should be dealt with; but he must point out that, a year ago, the Government undertook that the Committee which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty should be appointed. It was five years since the Committee sat; four years had passed since the Royal Commission reported; one year had elapsed since the Committee who should consider the Reports of the Committee and the Royal Commission was promised; and yet nothing had been done. He thought the question was the more important and the delay more serious, because not only were the thorough changes which had been proposed delayed, but fresh appointments had been actually made on the old system, within the last few months. He certainly thought that four years was a long time to wait for the Government of the day to act upon the unanimous recommendation of a Royal Commission.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, the Department of Clerks of Assize had not long since been made the subject of careful inquiry with a view to reforms, and he did not think the conduct of the Government in regard to the matter was fairly open to the charges which had been made to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract in the course of the discussion.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
pointed out that the Vote included a sum of £10,500, which was described as— Repayments to Sheriffs in England and Wales of Expenses incurred in providing Lodgings for the Judges on Circuit; Rewards in respect of extraordinary exertions in the furtherance of Justice, and other Expenses (including £240 formerly borne on the Consolidated Fund). He thought details ought to be given, instead of the Committee being asked to vote a lump sum.

§ MR. RYLANDS
complained of the amounts put down in the Estimate for the payment of the Official Referees. The amount put down was £6,000, and he believed the work done was quite incommensurate with the sum charged. He should be glad if the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury or some of the Legal Advisers of the Crown could suggest a way in which the services of the Official Referees could be utilized, and they could be made to earn their salaries.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
said, the hon. Member for Burnley seemed to be under the impression that the Law Officers of the Crown were responsible for the changes which had been rendered necessary by the passing of the Judicature Act. This was altogether a mistake. The Official Referees were appointed under an Act passed in 1873, when a Liberal Government was in power; and it would be remembered that, at the time, several hon. Members on both sides of the House strongly questioned the advisability of making the appointments. The objections were overborne by the Government of the day, and, as a consequence, it was determined to appoint Official Referees. When the appointments came to be made, there was a long discussion in the House as to the 953 suitability of some of the gentlemen who had been nominated, and in consequence of what was then said, the confidence of the public was so much shaken that very few cases were intrusted to the Official Referees. He saw no reason why this should have been so, but the fact remained. He could not contend that the Official Referees had done much work, because the contrary was the fact; but that was not their fault. They had been appointed under an Act of Parliament, and were ready, indeed eager, to do any amount of work that might be intrusted to them; but solicitors and other persons engaged in legal matters were disinclined, owing mainly to the discussions in that House on the question of their appointment, to intrust them with work, and they remained practically unemployed. Another reason why the business of the Official Referees was not extensive was, that the Act under which they were appointed did not give sufficiently wide powers of reference. If that defect were remedied, and the disfavour into which the Referees had fallen in consequence of the discussions in Parliament died away, he had no doubt that sufficient work would be found for them to do. The question now before the Committee, however, was one of expenditure, and he did not see how the office of Official Referee could be abolished, without some arrangement being made for the compensation of the office-holders. All he could suggest was, that if it were found that these gentlemen's time was not fully occupied, and if it should be thought that they were really and truly paid large salaries for doing a very inadequate amount of work, the best way of dealing with them would be—and he would only throw this out as a suggestion to the Committee—that these gentlemen should be utilized for other offices.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, no doubt it was true that the Government of the day was responsible for the Judicature Act; but that Act left all the details as numbers, salary, qualification and tenure of office to the Government under which the Act came into operation, and for these the present Lord Chancellor was responsible. The Government under whose auspices the Act was passed was in no respect responsible for anything else except the power granted to appoint 954 so many officers as the Lord Chancellor and the Presidents of the Divisions of the High Court of Justice should decide. Therefore, as to the number and qualifications of the gentlemen appointed under the Judicature Act, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General could not shake off the responsibility of his Government. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Official Referees, instead of being superseded, had a claim to other judicial appointments, he would remind him that those gentlemen were not in the position of holders of judicial offices, but were exactly like any other civil servants.

§ MR. WHEELHOUSE
observed, that it had been said, with truth, that certain portions of an action only could now be referred to the Official Referees. If this arose from any defect in the Act under which they were appointed, why could not the Government propose a short Bill, to enable everything in an action to be referred to the Official Referees, and giving them full power to deal with all questions in dispute? Whether those gentlemen ought to be so intrusted was another question.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, that there would be no difficulty in referring all questions in an action to the Referees, if all parties consented. He would suggest that, when the offices became vacant, they should not be filled up. Were the services of the Referees now dispensed with, the country would have to pay them compensation, which would come to nearly the same thing as continuing their salaries.

§ MR. GREGORY
observed, that if there was one thing he objected to in the Judicature Act, it was the power of compulsory reference. At the time the Act was passed, he protested against it as a great injustice; many other hon. Members also raised their voices against it; but the large majority on the other side of the House frustrated the Amendments they proposed on that and many other points. The Referees were constituted under the Judicature Act, and though, no doubt, they had been appointed by the present Government, the machinery with regard to them was regulated by the Act. He thought that discussion with reference to their appointment had arisen only in the case of one of them, the others being appointed 955 as a matter of course. The one to whom that discussion applied was appointed on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Baron to the Lord Chancellor. For his part, he had never expected that a great amount of business would be sent to these Official Referees, and he had not been disappointed. He thought that there should be an understanding with the Government that these appointments should not be filled up when they became vacant; or the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General might be adopted, and these Gentlemen might be gradually relieved, and placed in a somewhat similar position to the Masters, with regard to the conduct of references and arbitration. He believed that the gentlemen who filled these offices were desirous of working if the public would allow them, and it was not their fault that they sat idle in their offices. One of these gentlemen, who had been referred to by name, Mr. Russell, with whom he was personally acquainted, tried a reference of very great importance which his firm conducted. Mr. Russell threw himself into the matter with considerable zeal, and took a long journey into the South of Europe, in an inclement season of the year, for the purposes of the case. It became seriously ill in consequence. It was certainly one advantage of the system of Official Referees that they could move about anywhere to take evidence wherever necessary. That was a great convenience in the trial of causes submitted to them. But the system under which the fees were at present taken, and by which they were compelled to be paid before the matter could be proceeded with, was at once harassing and vexatious; while, at the same time, it was humiliating to the parties who had the conduct of the business, and, he ventured to say, was entirely unnecessary.

§ MR. WATKIN WILLIAMS
remarked, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) had expressed a hope that the Government would bring in a short Bill giving the Referees the same powers that were conferred upon the Courts by the Judicature Act of 1873. He was sorry to have to express a contrary opinion; he hoped the Government would do nothing of the kind. It was true there was an impression upon the part of the public, and of some of 956 the Judges, that the power of the High Court of Justice, in referring cases to the Official Referees, was too limited by the terms of the present Act. The truth was, that that was an accidental omission. Those who took part in the discussion of the Judicature Act of 1873 would recollect that, as a matter of policy, the powers to refer compulsorily to the Official Referees were limited. He remembered that some of the legal Members of the House pointed out that there was no provision introduced into the Act empowering the Courts to refer compulsorily any cause to the Official Referees, but only a question in an action. All that was to be referred to the Official Referees were matters for investigation and report in an action. That might seem to be a technical distinction, but it was one of substance; and when a question was referred to them to investigate and report upon, the judgment upon the matter was to be given by the Court itself. Therefore, the full control of the action was kept by the Court, the Official Referee only having to report to the Court upon matters in dispute. Had he not been satisfied that the power to refer compulsorily to the Official Referees was limited to any question in an action, he should have objected to the appointment of those gentlemen. He did not think that the explanation of the small amount of business which had come to them was that actions were not sufficiently within their absolute control. What the cause was he did not know; but he thought it was really hard upon these gentlemen to enter into a personal discussion concerning them, when the matter had been fully discussed in former years. If they were not the best men that could be selected, it was yet harder upon them to rake the matter up; they had given up their Profession for the sake of serving the public, and he protested against the recurrence of a discussion which could not be for the benefit of anyone concerned.

§ MR. ALFRED MARTEN
was bound to say, with regard to the observations that had been made upon the existing state of business before the Official Referees, that matters had much improved. For a considerable period very little was done by them, owing to the charges being fixed at too high a figure; but about a year ago a change was made, 957 and he believed, speaking especially of Chancery practice, that a considerable amount of business was now referred to the Official Referees. The great objection to their employment at first was the very high fees charged.

§ MR. NORWOOD
did not wish for one moment to attack these officers; but he, for one, objected to giving any compulsory power to the Judges to refer actions, which ought to be tried by them, to inferior officials. He maintained that when a suitor came to Her Majesty's High Court of Justice, he had a right to expect to obtain the verdict of the Judge himself. As he regarded it, the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would simply have the effect of relieving the Judges of duties they ought to discharge, and of forcing Her Majesty's subjects to accept the decision of an inferior officer; but he thought the proposal made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Government should take into consideration the advisability of utilizing the services of these gentlemen, was a wise one. When the Bill was under discussion, he was one of those who protested against giving these gentlemen too great a power, and he still protested against giving them any judicial power at all.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
did not think that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Norwood) had exactly appreciated what he wished to state to the Committee. He did not remember having suggested that the Official Referees should have greater power; but what he did say was, that they did not get so much business as they could perform, in consequence of the powers given by the Act of Parliament not having proved adequate for the purpose. As to whether those, powers should be increased or not, he had offered no suggestion. The only suggestion of a practical character he had made was, that their time not being utilized under the present system, they might be gradually absorbed and transferred to other offices.

§ MR. CHILDERS
had had an opportunity of referring to the Statute, and he found that the gentlemen accepted office under the ordinary conditions of the Superannuation Act as civil servants. If retired after three years, which was their present service, they would only be entitled to £100 a-year. Whether 958 or not it was intended to absorb them into any other Department, it nevertheless was the fact that they had accepted office on condition of being retired on such an allowance.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
My right hon. Friend has hardly recognized the fact that they are legal offices.

§ MR. CHILDERS
I have referred expressly to the terms of the Act, and it will be found that they are not legal offices, and no addition to their retirement allowances as such has been made.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
wished to correct the statement he had made in answer to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Frederick Cavendish). The Committee to which he referred, instead of having to be appointed, had completed its work, and agreed upon its Report, which would shortly be under the consideration of the Government.

§ Mr. RYLANDS
said, that it was the duty of those who represented the taxpayers in that House to see, when such large charges were made, that the country reaped full benefit from them. If it were thought that the House of Commons had committed a mistake in establishing offices and placing in them gentlemen who, for some reason or other, failed to fulfil their duties, it would be very unsatisfactory to the public to know that rather than disturb gentlemen in the enjoyment of these comfortable sinecures, the Government would continue to charge the country with the sum of £6,821. If for no other reason, he thought the discussion would be of value, inasmuch as it had produced two important statements, which he hoped would be borne in mind. One was the practical suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that it was possible that the Government might find some suitable situations into which those learned gentlemen might be drafted, and, although a mistake might have been made by the appointment of those officials, yet it might be rectified, and the public interest served by the course so suggested. If, on the other hand, the Government did not find any such situations for those gentlemen, then they were told by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), that in the course of the next year they could dispense with their services by giving them 959 a compensation allowance of £100 a-year each. They would then, also, get rid entirely of the Clerks to the Referees at £800 a-year, and in place of £6,800, they would pay an annuity of £400 a-year. If no one else on a future occasion, when the Vote came before the House, was prepared to move the rejection of the amount of the Vote, he should be prepared himself to make a Motion to that effect, with a view of inducing Her Majesty's Government to place those gentlemen on the retiring list. He sincerely hoped the Government would not put the Committee in the position of having to consider a Vote of this kind next year; for he was quite sure the Government ought, without any further pressure, to remove those gentlemen from the sinecure positions they now held, and remove them as speedily as possible to useful situations, or at once to place them upon the retiring list.

§ MR. MACDONALD
observed, that there was one point on which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had misled the Committee. It was stated very distinctly by the Attorney General that these gentlemen gave up their practices and businesses, and that statement was also affirmed by the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Watkin Williams), who had come to the rescue of these sinecurists. He remembered to have heard it stated that they were not in the possession of any practices. There was one other point to which he would call the attention of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury. It was the item—"Chancery Officer and High Court of Justice—1. Stock Broker, £2,000 a-year." He would like to know what the office of Stockbroker had to do with the High Court of Justice.

§ MR. BULWER
said, that he remembered, when this measure was passed, expressing the apprehension he was under that the appointment of the Official Referees would be a failure. It was then the opinion of the public and of the Profession that an additional Judge was required, who would have cost the country some £5,000 a-year; but the late economical Government preferred appointing the Official Referees, who cost the country a good deal more. In his opinion, the appointment of the Official Referees was altogether wrong on principle, and the only justification that he could see for their appointment was 960 that suitors might be benefited by lessening the expense of arbitrations; but, as he understood, no such benefit had resulted. If parties were to be compelled to refer matters in controversy to others than the legal tribunals, they ought to be able to choose the arbitrator themselves, for better or for worse, whose decision should be final. Under the present system, neither time nor expense was saved. It was in the power of any disappointed litigant to re-open every question before the Superior Courts, questions of fact as well as questions of law, all of which had been dealt with by the Official Referees, and thus to add very enormously to the expenses of litigation. To allow that to be done was, he thought, bad on principle. With reference to what had been said as to the gentlemen appointed having no practice, to his personal knowledge two, at least, of them, gave up large and lucrative practices, and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) was, therefore, wrong in what he had stated. He did not think that gentlemen who had given up large and lucrative practices ought to be dealt with in the manner suggested. It would be quite unworthy of the House of Commons to consign these gentlemen to private life with a salary of £100 a-year. So far as the principle of Official Referees was concerned, he protested against it, and believed that their appointment had been an unfortunate experiment.

§ MR. D. DAVIES
wished to call the attention of the Committee to one point, having had considerable experience in business before Referees. In his opinion, there was nothing worse than going before Referees, for counsel always took liberties with them. Barristers arranged matters for their own convenience, and postponed and delayed the trial, by which means those who employed them lost hundreds of pounds. A Referee or two might be useful to assess what the Judges called "quantum." The Judges could not be expected to go into questions of amount, and for that purpose Referees would be useful. He trusted the Government would find some way to make these gentlemen useful for that purpose.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
thought the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. D. Davies) had raised an objection which 961 could not be validly urged against these Official Referees. His objection was really against arbitrators appointed for better or for worse by the parties. Such a Referee might, at the request of counsel, allow an adjournment; but the Official Referee could not do that, but had to sit de die in diem, without listening to any applications for adjournment.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,
in answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), would venture to say that if the Stockbroker of the Chancery Division were not paid by salary his commission would come to a very much larger sum.

§ SIR HENRY JACKSON
said, that everyone acquainted with Chancery business knew that hundreds of thousands of pounds were invested yearly in the purchase of different securities. Some of those investments were of a very minute amount, and must necessarily cause an enormous amount of trouble to those engaged in making the investment. He should like to say one word on the question of Official Referees. Everyone must feel that the present system was a confessed failure, though as to the cause of it people might have different opinions. There were some very unpleasant debates as to the qualifications of the gentlemen appointed; but, after full discussion, the House came to the conclusion that no further action was necessary, and he thought that the present question ought to drop. He could not help thinking that the real cause of the failure was this—that it was not originally intended that lawyers should be appointed Official Referees. The theory of the Referees was, that technical questions, such as the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. D. Davies) refered to—as questions of "quantum," specifications of patents, chemical questions, and other matters of a technical character—should be referred to the investigation of persons who had scientific and technical, rather than legal, knowledge. In the clause of the Act of Parliament he found that it was not stated whether these Official Referees were to be barristers, or even lawyers at all. Their qualifications were left entirely open, and he could not help thinking that there had been some little miscarriage in the appointment of 962 lawyers. It was well known that jealousy was felt by suitors with regard to compulsory references. Every suitor thought he had a right to have his cause tried by the Judge himself, and, certainly, a good deal could be said in favour of that idea. But the same objection to a reference would not occur if skilled technical Referees had been appointed to conduct the compulsory references. He hoped that some day, when there was a vacancy in these offices, the Government would not abolish them, but would appoint in the place of lawyers some technically skilled persons, who would be able better to carry out the intentions of the framers of the Act.

§ MR. ALFRED MARTEN
observed, with regard to the superannuation allowances, that one of those gentlemen appointed was formerly Examiner in Chancery, and would not fall under the category mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers).

§ MR. BIGGAR
wished to have an explanation of some items which he found at p. 169 of the Estimates. They were under the head of Salaries to the Lord Chancellor's Officers. He found a Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, Chief Clerk to ditto, Second Clerk to ditto, Third Clerk to ditto, Messenger, Secretary to the Lord Chancellor, Secretary of Presentations, Secretary of Commissioners of the Peace, Gentleman of the Chamber, Pursebearer, ditto for performing the duties of Sealer and Chaff Wax, Messenger of the Great Seal, and others. He would like his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General to explain the meaning of some of those offices, for it seemed to him that the salaries paid to the Lord Chancellor's officers were exceedingly heavy in proportion to the amount of business performed by them.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
wished to protest against the employment of Official Referees. From all parties in the Committee he heard that they were excellent persons, very desirous of having something to do, yet finding no work. He begged to move to reduce the amount proposed to be voted by £3,000, which would relieve the Estimates of two of the Official Referees.

THE CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. Member propose to reduce the Vote or the item?

§ MR. O'DONNELL
The item.

§ MR. WHITWELL
hoped the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) would withdraw his Motion. It must be well known to him that a division would be perfectly nugatory, and they already had the assurance from hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House that they would do the best they could to decrease the expenditure for the future.

§ MR. CHARLES LEWIS
perfectly well recollected the discussion that took place in that House in 1873, when the original Judicature Act was passing. The clause appointing the Official Referees was supported on the ground that it would be well to appoint prominent scientific men as Official Referees to conduct references of scientific matters. The Lord Chancellor had not carried out that clause, of which he was not the author, and had seen fit to appoint barristers. It was no wonder their services were not so much sought after by suitors as those of scientific men would be in purely scientific cases. There was a very wide-spread suspicion and dislike of these "hole-and-corner" investigations. It was, however, a very hard thing to call these gentlemen the holders of sinecure offices, when they had to attend and be ready to perform their duties. It was necessary for them always to be in attendance at their offices, for they could never tell when they would be required. He begged to oppose the Amendment.

§ MR. CHILDERS
joined in the appeal to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) to withdraw his Motion.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
said, he did not feel himself justified in withdrawing his Motion, but would be content if the Committee negatived it without a division.

§ MR. RAMSAY
asked whether the Government had directed their attention to the Report of the Select Committee on Lunacy. Evidence was produced before that Committee to show that very great expenses were incurred by the employment of Visitors in Lunacy and the 964 Masters in Lunacy. He thought that some attention should be paid to that evidence, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would see its way to effect a junction between the jurisdiction in Lunacy of the Court of Chancery and the Commissioners in Lunacy, so as to unite the two bodies into one Department of the State, having charge of all lunatics. That system prevailed in Scotland, and economy would be effected in England by putting all lunatics in the charge of one Department. It was essential something should be done, as great expenses were incurred by the present system.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)
said, that the Lord Chancellor's Offices numbered a great many Departments in the State, with different Secretaries who were absolutely essential for the performance of the work. The Secretary of Presentations took charge of that Department, while the Secretary for Commission of the Peace looked after another; and so on. With reference to the other Departments, he could not give the exact duties of each, but they were all necessary.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he was not satisfied with the explanation. There was a Pursebearer, a Sealer, and Chaff Wax; and, unless he had some reasonable explanation of their duties, it seemed to him that the offices were sinecures. He would confine himself to moving that the Vote be reduced by the sum paid to the Pursebearer, Sealer, and Chaff Wax.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the hon. Member for Cavan would not be in Order in making the Motion he proposed. The Committee had at present before it the Motion to reduce the item for the salaries of the Official Referees, and it would not be in Order to propose to omit another item while that was under consideration.

§ MR. BIGGAR
thought that he would be in Order in proposing that the whole of the Vote be reduced. He should like an explanation as to the Clerk of Petty Bag, and the other officers.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)
was afraid that he could not explain all these different items as they were not in his Department. The Sealer and Chaff Wax, he presumed, performed duties in affixing the Great Seal to all documents passing 965 under it. No doubt, it would not be expected that the Lord Chancellor would himself affix the Seal, and he supposed the official referred to was charged with that duty. The office of the Petty Bag was one from which all original writs issued. He did not know the exact administration of the office, only that it was one that was actually in the performance of duties, and in no respect a sinecure.

§ MR. GREGORY
wished to state that the office of Chaff Wax used to be a sinecure. There was a considerable revenue attached to it; but it was now abolished, and the holder received compensation. There were certain duties which had to be performed, and they were now executed by a person who received £100 a-year for affixing the Great Seal. The Purse bearer was the person who carried the Great Seal, and always accompanied the Lord Chancellor.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
would ask the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to rest satisfied with the explanation.

§ MR. DILLWYN
said, that a question had been asked as to the meaning of the Petty Bag office. So far as he could understand the hon. and learned Solicitor General, the explanation was that he did not know much about it. That did not seem to him satisfactory.

§ MR. PARNELL
observed, that the office of Pursebearer had already been under the consideration of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into those offices. In the Report of the Commissioners there was a short passage which he would read— ''We are of opinion—and it is one shared by the present Pursebearer—that all of his duties, except that of sealing, may be done by the Gentleman of the Chamber, and that the sealing could be done by a messenger under the direction of that officer. Thus, the Commissioners gave it as their opinion that the duties of a Pursebearer could be performed by other functionaries, and £600 a-year saved to the country.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, that the Report of the Committee appointed by the present First Lord of the Admiralty had not come before the House; but it would be presented in a short time. Then the suggestions of the Committee would be considered with a view to the adoption of their proposals. 966 He must, however, remind hon. Members that, when it was proposed to abolish some of these offices, the question of retiring salaries to the holders of them had to be considered. Therefore, they must be very careful in adjusting any scheme to carry out the Report of the Committee.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that the explanation as to the Pursebearer was satisfactory, and he would assume that the Government would do what was right for the public service in respect of that office, and that if the duties could be performed by some other officials, the holder of the office would be absorbed in some such way as proposed in the case of the Official Referees. As to the Petty Bag Office, no explanation seemed to be given, and he should be happy to hear something with respect to it.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
thought he had stated no alterations were to be made at present, because a Committee had been appointed to report upon the matter. The Department of the Petty Bag was one of those old Departments of the State, like the Purse-bearer, the relic of an old system, and, in common with the others, would come into consideration in any fresh scheme that might be proposed. It would be impossible to do away with particular offices, except by the re-organization of Departments, and the subject, as a whole, had yet to be considered.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that as he understood that these offices were likely, to some extent, to be re-constituted, he would not trouble the Committee any further in the matter; but if he lived for another year, and found that no reform was introduced with respect to the items to which attention had been drawn, he should feel it his duty to strenuously oppose the Votes, for many of the charges included in them appeared to him to be thoroughly preposterous.

§ MR. RAMSAY
remarked, that no notice had been taken of the subject to which he had directed attention. He would appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General seriously to consider the expediency of making some change in the administration of the affairs of lunatics, which came under the cognizance of the Court of Chancery. He thought that the facts which were stated in the evidence to which he had referred were sufficient to show that 967 some change should be made. He did not say what change. Upon that point he offered no opinion; but some assurance ought to be given to the Committee that the subject would be seriously considered before this Vote was submitted to them another year.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he had to apologize to the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), but really his point was covered by the reply which he had already given. These were all branches of the same Department, on which a Royal Commission, and, subsequently, a Committee, had reported; and the question of the re-organization of the Staff and duties of this, as of all the other branches of Chancery, would have to be considered at the same time by the Treasury.

§ MR. DILLWYN
thought it was rather hard that when a plain question, as to what were the duties of the Petty Bag Office was asked, not a single Member of the Government was in a position to give a plain answer to it. Yet the Committee were called upon to vote a certain sum of money for the office. He thought that when his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who had threatened to move the rejection of this item, accepted the explanation of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury—though that explanation was far from satisfactory, indeed, it was no explanation at all—that under the circumstances his hon. Friend ought not to be readily charged again with obstruction. He (Mr. Dillwyn) confessed that if he had proposed the reduction of the Vote, he should not have been disposed to act as his hon. Friend had done.

§ MR. GREGORY
desired to point out to the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), that the functions of the Masters of Lunacy had reference, to a great extent, to the management of the estates of lunatics; while the duties of the Commissioners, who had to visit the lunatics, were of a distinct character.

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, he was fully aware of what the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gregory) had just stated; but what he had omitted to tell the Committee was, that the items to which attention had been drawn were justifiable either in the interest of the lunatics, or of the country. What he (Mr. Ramsay) 968 contended was, that these estates ought to bear the expenses of management, including the expenses of any persons or officers who might be employed by the Lord Chancellor to look after them. He thought, moreover, that he had shown that the subject was one of pressing importance.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, a vacancy had recently occurred in the office of Master of the Queen's Bench. He believed it had been stated by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, that the Report of the Committee upon Legal Offices was in the hands of the Treasury, and he (Mr. Gregory) hoped that before long it would be laid upon the Table of the House. He thought they might assume that that Report had some bearing upon such an office as he had mentioned, and it might be satisfactory to the Committee to receive some assurance from the Government that this office should not be filled up until, at all events, the Treasury had had an opportunity of considering this Report. Perhaps, his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury could give them some information upon the subject.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
was afraid his answer would not be satisfactory to his hon. Friend. He could only say that the appointment was one which rested, not with the Treasury, but entirely with the Lord Chief Justice.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, that, if he were not mistaken, power was taken in an Act, passed either last year or the year before, to suspend all appointments until it had been decided what course should be adopted with respect to the Report of the Commission.

§ MR. WHITWELL
could not think that the Lord Chief Justice would fill up an appointment which he was given to understand would have to come under the review of the Treasury. He wished to ask, whether it was a fact that all expenses incurred in respect of Election Petitions were paid by the parties themselves? He had been under the impression that such was the case; but he found that the Vote included a considerable sum for 969 defraying the expense of conducting such Petitions.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
thought, that if his hon. Friend would refer to the Act on the subject, he would find that the duty of defraying certain expenses was imposed by it upon the Treasury out of money to be provided by Parliament. These were the expenses put down in this Vote.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, it struck him that under the head of Clerks to the different Judges in the Queen's Bench Division, there was an extraordinary large number of persons employed. He should like to ask the hon. and learned Solicitor General what occupation there was for so many clerks?

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)
believed that the clerks were not one too many with reference to the administrative business that had to be got through. The hon. Member did not sufficiently understand that, besides the business with which he was more familiar—namely, that which took place in Court—there was an enormous number of duties of a different character. Originally the clerks were paid by fees, and those fees were considered to be excessive. By an Act of Parliament fees were taken away, and the clerks were paid, not so very long ago, by salaries which were then fixed; but he believed it was the experience of all the learned Judges in their Chambers, that the number of clerks was by no means in excess of the requirements of the public service.

§ MR. MACDONALD
complained that here, again, they had officers filling two distinct offices, for each of which they received a salary. He should really like to know how it was they were able to perform the duties of both offices. He had no wish to waste the time of the Committee, but he must repeat that this was a matter which demanded their most earnest attention.

§ MR. MELLOR
said, he entertained the opinion, that the more they obstructed 970 upon these Estimates the more likely they were to arrive in the end at a satisfactory solution. He quite agreed with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald). It would appear that persons were appointed to office without regard being had whether the duties were sufficient to absorb the whole of their time or not. His own opinion was, that a person was appointed who was employed for a couple of hours each day, and that he was attached to some other Department with an additional salary to fill up his time. He found that in that House there was one party to trim the lamp, and another to light the fire; but on the principle which seemed to guide the Treasury in these matters, if the one man were to be employed to perform both duties he would receive two salaries, although he performed them within the day. He hoped that the hon. Member for Stafford would take a more decided course. Nothing was so objectionable to his mind as discussing these various points in the Estimates without coming to a division, and testing the opinion of the Committee upon them.

§ MR. MACDONALD
said, he had again to ask the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, what explanation he had to offer with respect to persons who were receiving as much as £200 a-year for one office, while they were paid large sums besides for services rendered in other offices? Unless this thing was explained, he should certainly follow the course indicated by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Mellor), and divide the Committee on every one of these items, if it were to take six months to get through the Estimates.

MR. J. COWEN
thought that some of his hon. Friends scarcely appreciated the position. Their judicial system was one that had recently undergone an entire change, and the difficulty arose in assimilating the old with the new. There were a large number of persons holding offices now who held offices under the old system, and they could not dispense with them without giving them compensation. The difficulty was to join the old and the new together. Now, as he understood, the Government had undertaken to inquire into the whole subject, and deal with it in a comprehensive manner, and if they did that, 971 they would remove the objections which some of his hon. Friends had to the present system. There was no doubt that what they said had a good deal of force in it—namely, that many of these gentlemen were holding two or three offices, getting salaries for each, and doing comparatively nothing for them. But if that state of affairs was to be dealt with, it must be in a comprehensive and not in an isolated way.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
explained, that what the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had said accounted for a considerable number of these cases. He would further point out that the result of employing some of these officers in doing work which appeared in the foot-note as work done without the Department was a saving of the public money. If that course had not been followed, the probability was that the work would have been done by some officer appointed for the purpose with a larger salary.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, that perhaps he might be allowed to inform the Committee why it was that such an increasing number of these footnotes appeared in the Estimates. The fact was, that some few years ago the Committee on Public Accounts recommended that this information should be given, as they thought it very unfair that full information should not be afforded to the House. Formerly, no such notes were appended to the Votes, and it would have been impossible then, from the Estimates, to know what the emoluments of a public servant were.

§ MR. DILLWYN
quite agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) that the foot-notes were a great improvement on the Estimates produced formerly; but what he urged some time ago upon the House, and what he would still continue to urge, was that an addition should be made to these footnotes. He desired that in each Session, before the Estimates were placed in their hands, a tabulated statement should be prepared showing the names of all the officers who held different offices, with the salaries or remuneration attached to them. The House would then be able to see what it was doing. He quite agreed with what the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had said. It might be a great advantage to 972 the public service to have two separate sets of duties performed by an officer in one of the Departments; but, on the other hand, such an arrangement afforded an opening for very great jobbing and mystification. It might, in fact, be made a cover for sinecures, if not very sharply looked after; and a tabulated statement such as he had suggested would enable hon. Members to discharge that duty much more efficiently than they could at the present time.

§ MR. BIGGAR
wished, before the Vote was passed, to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to one item in it. He observed that in the case of the Registrar of the Court of Admiralty, that officer was also paid a salary as Wreck Commissioner—the two together, with that appertaining to another office, amounting to £3,000 a-year. As Registrar, he was receiving a salary of £1,600 a-year, and it seemed to him that was a very large sum to pay a man filling the position of Registrar, who had, he supposed, no judicial duties to perform.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
explained, that when the Wreck Commission was first started, the duties of that body were intrusted to the Registrar of the Admiralty Court, as being one of the ablest men who could be found for the position. He thought that, having regard to the nature of the duties performed by that gentleman, the Committee would not think that he was paid too much.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
wished to say, with reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), that he thought the general undertaking of the Government to take a survey of the whole subject did not relieve hon. Members from the duty of criticizing the Estimates, and pointing out what they considered as blots in them.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
asked, whether he was not right in stating that the superannuations were equal to the whole amount of the salaries now paid in the Bankruptcy Court?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
explained, that though the pensions bore a large proportion of the total amount, they were gradually dying out.

§ MR. MACDONALD
asked, why one of the clerks received £100 a-year in addition to his salary, and £20 a-year in the shape of an advance which was paid to him in common with the other clerks? What were the duties which entitled him to the extra £100?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
was afraid he could not give the desired information; but, from its not appearing in a foot-note, he imagined that the £100 was for some special work done by the clerk in question. He would make inquiry.

§ MR. PARNELL
asked the meaning of the item for Counsels' fees?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
imagined that there was still work required to be done by those gentlemen, although the office had been abolished.

MR. J. COWEN
said, he wished to direct the attention of the Committee to the items in this account relating to the payment of County Court Registrars. When these Registrars were appointed, the design and intention of Parliament was that their salaries should not amount to more than from £800 to £1,000 a-year. That was the maximum it was then held that the Registrars should be entitled to receive. But it had so happened that, in consequence of the great increase which had since taken place in the business of the County Courts—an increase which at the time these salaries were fixed had never been contemplated by the Legislature—the salaries of the Registrars had been greatly augmented. He ought to state that the Registrars were paid partly by fees and partly by salaries, and the result was that a large number of them received incomes considerably in excess of the intended maximum. He found that there were 11 County Court Registrars in this country who were in receipt of upwards of £1,500 a-year; there were 10 who were receiving £1,200 a-year; and a considerable number—he did not know how many—who received upwards of £1,000 a-year. And not only did 974 many of them receive incomes in excess of what was originally intended, but some of their incomes were very largely in excess. For example, the Registrar of the County Court of Birmingham received £5,150 in the shape of salary, and £2,451 in payments on account of clerk-hire. Thus, this officer, who was expected to receive from £800 to £1,000 a-year at the time of his appointment, was now receiving a sum that was much in excess of the salaries paid to the Speaker of the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Prime Minister of England, and double the salary given to the Chairman of Committees. The Registrar of the Leeds County Court was in receipt of a salary of £3,636 and £1,365 for clerk-hire. The Registrar of the Newcastle County Court received £3,571 a-year, and £375 for clerk-hire. The Registrar of Sheffield had a salary of £3,348 and £1,000 for clerk hire. The Registrar of the Bristol County Court received £3,245 as salary, and £1,725 for clerk-hire. The Registrar of the Manchester County Court was in receipt of £2,768 salary, and £1,390 for clerk-hire. The Registrar of the Bradford County Court had an income of £2,596, and £596 for clerk-hire. He might add many more cases of a similar character to this list; but what he had already stated was sufficient to show that the sums paid to these officials were much in excess of what would be a fair and legitimate emolument for the duties discharged as well as of the income which Parliament originally intended them to receive. It seemed to him a great anomaly to place a man in the position of a County Court Judge with a salary of from £1,200 to £1,500 a-year, and to allow an officer of his Court, with nothing like his legal experience, sitting in an adjacent room and performing what was merely clerical work—atany rate, duties that almost any ordinary clerk could perform—to receive something like double the salary given to the Judge, and sometimes three times the amount; while, in a very large majority of cases, his income was greatly in excess of that of the Judge. He trusted that some attention would be paid to this matter by Her Majesty's Government, and that an arrangement would be made by which the salaries paid to Registrars should be proportionate to the duties they had to discharge 975 than was now the case. He had no wish to deal hardly with those who at present held the office of Registrar. They had got their appointments, somewhat perhaps by accident, but still they held them, and if the arrangements for their payment should be altered, they would be entitled to compensation; but, in the case of after appointments to that office, it would not be difficult to arrange that they should not be paid anything like the sums they were now receiving. He did not propose to move any Amendment, or to ask for any reduction of the Vote, because he knew that that would be practically impossible. All he desired was to direct attention to this great anomaly; and he should be glad to hear some expression of opinion on the part of the Government, and, if possible, some assurance that they would devote attention to the subject. He was aware that Gentlemen in that House who belonged to the Legal Profession did not like to hear persons who were outside the Profession speaking on legal matters, and that whenever those who were outside the Legal Profession did touch upon such subjects, the rule was to treat them with a certain amount of indifference. Nevertheless, commercial men throughout the country were greatly interested in this matter; and, under these circumstances, he had taken the liberty of submitting to the Government and the Committee the points to which he had drawn attention.

§ MR. WHEELHOUSE
was inclined to indorse pretty nearly everything that had fallen from the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) as to the anomalous position of County Court Registrars. No one who knew what were the duties of these gentlemen could doubt that the salaries and fees which made up their incomes were very much in excess of what was originally contemplated or thought possible. It was simply an absurdity to know that while none of the Judges had £2,000 a-year, some of the Registrars obtained twice that sum from their offices. He thought he could point out what was one reason for this. Since the passing of the Act under which the Registrars were appointed, the law had imposed upon these officers a second office—namely, that of District Registrar, to which was attached a considerable salary. He trusted that 976 something would be done by which the two offices could be dissociated and kept distinct.

§ MR. WHITWELL
said, it must be evident to everyone who had at all considered the subject that it was impossible for this Vote to be brought before the House, without some allusion being made to the subject touched upon by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). It was a subject of which they had heard a good deal lately; but, whatever opinions they might have upon it, they ought not to forget that one of the causes of the increased amounts paid to the County Court Registrars was the enormous increase of business that had taken place in the County Courts; and, inasmuch as the Registrars were paid by fees over and above their specified salaries, their emoluments had shown a proportionate increase. One of the causes of this great increase of business was the extension of the Bankruptcy Act to the County Courts; and as there was a large amount of bankruptcy business done in these Courts, the Registrars derived there from an extra income. He hoped, however, that now the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been so strongly called to the subject, they would lend their aid in a very desirable reform by equalizing the payment of Registrars.

§ MR. MELLOR
expressed a hope that, as the offices now held by the Registrars became vacant, the new appointments would be made at fixed salaries, without fees. This was the only judicious course Her Majesty's Government could take on this subject.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
said, the matter was one that would have full consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Government. At present, the arrangement under which the Registrars were remunerated was fixed by Act of Parliament, and there could be little doubt that when the emoluments of those officers were originally determined, the business of the County Courts was never expected to increase to the proportions it had assumed. The hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) had hit upon the real reason why the remuneration of the Registrars was apparently so much out of proportion to their duties. If hon. Members would refer, they would find an explanation of the present law upon 977 the subject. By the Act 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, the Registrars were to be paid £120 for the first 200 plaints entered in the year, and £5 for every additional 25 plaints entered up to 1,000, and then £4 until the number reached 6,000; and out of this remuneration the necessary clerks were to be paid by the Registrars. If the number of plaints exceeded 6,000, the net salary was not to exceed £800, with £70 for clerk-hire. This was altered by a later Act of Parliament, which specified that on the occurrence of any vacancy in the office of High Bailiff the Registrar should perform the duties of High Bailiff, with a moderate scale of remuneration. It was never contemplated at that time that the number of plaints would exceed 8,000; but, as a matter of fact, the number of plaints frequently exceeded 8,000 in the year. The County Courts had proved to be rather a favourite tribunal, and the number of plaints had greatly exceeded what was originally anticipated. He was free to confess that the Registrars were at present remunerated to a far higher amount than was reasonable and fair. That was his opinion. The question, therefore, came to this—what was the remuneration to be? He must say he had been rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) complain of a disinclination on the part of the lawyers to hear observations on such subjects as these from persons outside the Legal Profession. For his own part, he (the Attorney General) never had such a notion, and he certainly never heard any such disinclination expressed by any lawyer in that House; while he might add that everyone was in the habit of receiving with favour any proposition that came from the hon. Member for Newcastle. The hon. Gentleman had recently introduced into the House a County Courts Bill, which contained suggestions that were received with the greatest possible attention by the House. He considered the proper mode of paying Registrars was by salary, and he should be glad if means could be devised to enable such a plan to be adopted. But there were many difficulties in the way of making such an arrangement. True, in large places, a reasonable salary might be easily fixed; but that would not be the case in small Courts. If the Registrars of these 978 little districts had a salary, the least which could be paid them would be a great deal more than the work they had to perform warranted. However, he might say that the Government, being perfectly alive to the anomalies which existed under the present mode of payment, would grapple with the subject, and take some steps which would bring about a more satisfactory state of things.

§ MR. MELDON
said, the fees paid to Registrars in England were enormous, and altogether out of proportion to the sums allowed in Ireland. Last Session, a County Court Act was passed for Ireland, under which it was provided that no Registrars should be appointed. But, on its being found that it was impossible to carry on the business of the Courts without such officers, the Government yielded, and consented to appoint them. But how were they to be paid? Seeing the large fees which were charged in England, it would naturally be supposed that the Irish Registrars, competent men as they must be, would have a fair and proper salary given them. The Government, however, gave no salary. After preventing the increased jurisdiction of the Courts being taken advantage of for some time, owing to their refusing to appoint Registrars, the Government said such officials might be attached to the Courts, but that the remuneration should be two or three guineas a-day for those days actually devoted to Court work. The result was, that the County Court Act was almost a dead letter in Ireland, owing to the shabby conduct of the Government towards the Irish—conduct which strangely contrasted with the proceedings in England. He was glad to hear the Attorney General say that he considered payment by salary the proper mode to remunerate Registrars; and he would take the liberty of suggesting to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, if in any measure he proposed such a plan for England, he should treat Ireland in the same way. Everyone admitted that it was of the utmost importance that the Irish County Court Act should be made popular as soon as possible; but, up to the present, everything had been done to make it almost inoperative.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the Treasury took all the fees in Ireland, whereas in England £300,000 were voted by Parliament 979 to pay Registrars of the County Courts; besides which, probably, as much again was paid them out of the Court fees. This was very unfair to the Irish officials, and unless some alteration was made next year, he should mark his sense of such conduct by moving to strike out the whole Vote for English Registrars.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, the hon. Member for Meath had fallen into an error in supposing that the English Registrars had salaries and fees as well. The fees would be found charged as extra receipts to the Exchequer, and these receipts were larger than the expenses—£414,000 coming from County Court work, and £67,800 from Bankruptcy business.

§ MR. MURPHY
desired an explanation of the increase in the charge for stationery in the County Courts. He observed that £19,000 was asked for this year, as against £14,700 last year.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, the increase of stationery represented the increased work in the County Courts.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
expressed the pleasure he felt at having heard the Attorney General say he would endeavour to deal with the question of payment to Registrars. The County Courts were of great advantage to the smaller classes of litigants, and everything should be done to make them both efficient and popular.

§ MR. PARNELL
did not understand the answer which the hon. Baronet gave to him as to the payments to English Registrars.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, the Registrars paid by salaries had those salaries calculated on the scale of work done. Those salaries were covered by the fees, and though the scale might be altogether wrong, he desired to point out that double payments were not made, as the hon. Member for Meath seemed to suppose.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought Registrars had a direct sum as salary, and a percentage on the fees. ["No, no!"] He could not see how it was otherwise, when they were told that the net salary of a Registrar did not exceed £700 a-year; whereas the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had stated that the Registrar of the Manchester County Court had £2,768 a-year, and the Registrar of the 980 Birmingham County Court, £3,566. He could not see how they could have so much, unless the salaries were augmented by fees.

§ MR. HERMON
said, the whole question of payments to Registrars was under the consideration of the Committee on the three County Courts Bills which had been introduced into the House. He thought the whole subject might be discussed when the Committee reported.

MR. J. COWEN
explained, that the figures he had quoted appeared in a Return made to the House last year.

§ MR. WHITWELL
said, he was sorry to have to propose a reduction of the Vote. This Registry had now been established for several years, but little or no business had been transacted in the Court. Very few deeds had been registered, very few titles had been rendered indefeasible, and what had been done was done merely for the benefit of a few individual landowners. The whole amount received to the credit of this Court during the year was £995 5s. 6d., and yet the expenditure was no less than £5,418. The time had arrived when the Committee ought to express its opinion as to the undesirability of continuing at a constant expense a scheme which had proved to be an utter failure. He begged to propose to reduce the Vote by £4,422 15s. 6d., which was the difference between the amount of the expected receipts and the sum expended.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that there was a certain inconvenience in proposing to reduce the Vote by that particular sum, and he suggested that the hon. Member should propose to reduce the Vote by some other sum, so as to raise the question of principle.

§ MR. WHITWELL
thereupon moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £3,000.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
said, the Act of Parliament relating to Land Registry was passed in 1875. It was not then expected that the benefits of a registry of title would be immediately apparent to landowners, and it was not anticipated that the measure would be at once a complete success. It was, in fact; admitted by everybody who was concerned in the passing of the Act, that some considerable time must elapse before its provisions would be appreciated by the country, and before those persons who were possessed of land would take advantage of its provisions. He would admit fully and freely to the hon. Member who had moved to reduce this Vote, that up to the present time no great amount of business had been done in the Land Registry Court. It was true that the business transacted last year exceeded to some extent the amount of business done in previous years; but still, it must be admitted that, up to the present time, the number of titles registered had been comparatively insignificant. But the question of the registration of titles was one of the greatest moment and importance. It had been discussed over and over again in Parliament. Bills had been brought forward by eminent lawyers, and some measures had been passed on the subject. Notably, a measure was passed in 1862, which was advocated by the late Lord Westbury, than whom, he supposed, there had scarcely ever appeared a man of greater power and grasp of intellect, and more capable of dealing with a subject like this. But the great difficulty lay in this point. Everybody admitted it would be an immense advantage if they could have a satisfactory and efficacious registry of titles to land. It would simplify the transfer of land, and also cheapen it to a very considerable extent. But then came this very difficult problem, with which those who agreed to the proposition he had just mentioned were obliged to deal—namely, how could an Act be framed that would provide for the effiacious registry of titles, unless they made registration of titles compulsory? That was the difficulty 982 which had presented itself to the mind of everybody who had endeavoured to deal with this question. The desire of those who had brought forward measures on this subject was to pass an Act which would be effectual, and which, at the same time, would not be tyrannical. When Lord Westbury passed his Bill into an Act in 1862, it was thought to be a compulsory measure, but it turned out not to be so. The scheme was to elaborate. The question of boundary came in, and the scheme required a machinery which was too complicated. Whatever the reason of the defect might be, the result was that the Act was never much resorted to. It was thought, in 1875, that that Act might be very considerably improved and amended, and that a new system might be inaugurated which, without being compulsory, would do the work well. The most eminent conveyancers and other persons who had the greatest possible amount of knowledge of real property law, came to the conclusion that a measure might be enacted which would have the desired effect without being compulsory. There existed in this country the strongest objection to a measure which would compel people to register their titles, whether they liked to do so or not; because, when men had landed property, they, of course, did not wish to put on the register a title which might be defective. If their title were a good one, they could not improve it by putting it on the register; but if it were a bad title, they would, by putting it on the register, proclaim the fact to all the world. However, the Members of that House, and of the other House, who took an interest in this matter, thought they understood it better than anyone else. Accordingly, in 1875, they proposed a scheme, and introduced a Bill, which was passed into law with, he believed, the assent and approval of his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell). At all events, the great majority of the Members of both Houses of Parliament approved the measure, and it therefore became law. It was so complicated a measure, that he should not endeavour, on the present occasion, to explain its provisions. Indeed, he did not know whether, if he made the attempt, he should be successful; but this he knew—that no one who spoke when the Bill was being passed 983 into an Act ever imagined that it would work efficaciously all at once. It offered certain advantages to a landed proprietor who chose to register his title. If he chose to register a title that was defeasible, that title would, in process of time, become a good title. It was thought the advantages held out by the Act to the community of landed proprietors would induce them ultimately to avail themselves of its provisions. This might—and he hoped would—eventually happen, although on this point he expressed no opinion of his own. Certainly, the provisions of the Act had already been resorted to by gentlemen who possessed a considerable portion of land, which they wished to turn into building plots. In such a case, they resorted to the provisions of this Statute, because, by doing so, they were enabled to make at once a good title to anybody who wanted to buy a little building plot, and, consequently, they got a higher price than they otherwise would for the land they offered for sale. This subject had been very recently investigated. Not many days ago, on the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Watkin Williams), the attention of the House was drawn to it. Like many other people, his hon. and learned Friend had a plan of his own which was the very best that could be adopted, and he suggested to the Government that they should consent to the appointment of a Select Committee which should go into the matter thoroughly and ascertain whether, if they could not have a satisfactory registration of titles, it might not be possible to have a satisfactory registration of deeds. Her Majesty's Government thought it desirable that the subject should be investigated to the fullest possible extent, and agreed to the appointment of a Select Committee, which would have the benefit of all the ideas of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Denbigh Boroughs, and of any other Members of Parliament who might choose to go before it. That Committee had now been appointed, and he submitted to the hon. Member for Kendal that it was not quite fair, at such a time, to move to reduce the salaries of the officers who had been appointed in the Court of Land Registry. Those gentlemen, it should be remembered, had been appointed by 984 Act of Parliament. They had left their ordinary professional pursuits to serve in these offices; and, at all events, while the matter was being considered by the Select Committee which the Government had consented to appoint, it was not very reasonable to ask the Committee of the Whole House now to reduce this Vote by £3,000, or by any other sum. If the Select Committee, after investigating the whole matter thoroughly, should arrive at the conclusion that it was useless to have a registration of titles, they would, of course, say so; and if they came to the conclusion that a registration of deeds would be effectual, it might be thought that such a scheme might be carried out by the staff which now existed in the Court of Land Registry. Indeed, he had heard that one of the gentlemen who held an office in this Court saw no difficulty whatever in carrying out, without any additional expense, a scheme for the registration of deeds, and was, in fact, in favour of such a scheme.

§ MR. M'LAREN
wished to call the attention of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury to the contrast between the present Vote and that for the Registry of Deeds in Scotland. In the present case, three-fourths of the expenditure was lost, or made up by the public. In the case, however, of the Registry of Deeds in Scotland, the expenditure was £36,000, while the income was £44,000. Therefore, the landowners of Scotland paid every farthing of the expense of registration, and also a surplus of £8,000 a-year. Hon. Members from Scotland contended that the surplus was illegal, being contrary to the clauses of the Act of 1867, and that the fees ought to be reduced; but, on the present occasion, he merely desired to draw the attention of the Committee to the contrast between the English and the Scotch Vote. The lowest clerk in the English Land Registry received from £250 to £350 a-year; whereas some of the clerks in the office at Edinburgh, who had been 13 years in the Government service, got only £90 a-year.

§ MR. GREGORY
observed, that in England they had only a registration of titles, while in Scotland there was a registration of deeds. He believed the Scotch system worked very well, and he hoped that some evidence as to its working 985 would be given before the Select Committee which had just been appointed to inquire into the registration of land in England. The gentlemen who held office in the Court of Land Registry possessed great abilities; but the failure had been caused by the difficulties presented by the system itself. A Royal Commission found that Lord Westbury's Act contained principles which were antagonistic to its effectual working. First of all, it required an indefeasible title—namely, one which they could force on an unwilling purchaser. It required, too, that notice should be given to every adjoining owner or occupier of land. That, of course, involved raising every possible right relating to a boundary. A fence, a ditch, a right of way, or any other right, which, perhaps, had been dormant for centuries, was immediately aroused by a notice of this description. Such a notice put a man upon his rights, and he must either litigate in defence of them, or else abandon them. Again, Lord Westbury's Act required that when a title was once placed upon the register, it should always be kept there. Consequently, if an owner wanted to cut up his land into small portions, every one of those portions must pass through the register. That process was expensive, and it constituted another objection to the registration of land. Subsequently, another Act of Parliament was passed, which provided for the registration of defeasible as well as indefeasible titles. That Act had been in operation for about four years. A certain number of titles, but not a great many, had been registered under its provisions. It should be borne in mind that although there were in this country very few titles which could be upset, yet, at the same time, there was scarcely a title which would pass a strict investigation without requiring a good deal of explanation; and all this naturally involved expense, which people did not care to incur. If it were determined to establish a registration of deeds, the existing machinery might be employed to carry it out. Of course, he could not answer for the recommendations of the Select Committee; but what he himself contemplated was that this Land Registry Office might be made the centre of a system of registration for the whole country. In conclusion, he expressed a 986 hope that, in the circumstances, his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal would not press to a division his Motion to reduce the Vote.

§ MR. RAMSAY
understood that the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal was to point out that the Committee voted a sum of money annually for the maintenance of a Department which was practically of no use, and also to suggest the expediency of abolishing it altogether. His hon. Friend accordingly proposed that the Vote should be reduced by the sum of £3,000, in order to raise the general question. He thought the remarks of the Attorney General and of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gregory) were sufficient to show that unless registration was, in effect, made compulsory, past experience indicated that it was useless to continue this system of registration at all. It had often struck him that the people of England were induced to adopt a cumbrous complicated system in order to attain an end which could have been attained much more easily if they had availed themselves of the experience of other parts of the Kingdom. The Scotch system of registration of deeds was not a matter of legal obligation, but was practically compulsory, because used as a means of additional security. He could not see how there should be any hesitation in adopting a system whereby all deeds or prospective deeds should be registered. Each purchaser in that case acquiring any portion of land or real estate would register it for security, and in the case of succession to land the deed could be registered in the same way. He believed that if there were a system of registration of that nature in this country, the number of transactions would be such as to require a very large and increased establishment. They had been told that in Scotland the amount of fees collected was greatly in excess of the expenditure; but it was to be remembered that the number of transactions was much more limited than in England. He hoped, therefore, that before another year had passed, some definite proposition would be placed before the House to secure the prospective registration of all deeds.

§ MR. WHEELHOUSE
said, in the West Riding of Yorkshire there was a system which, if the owner of the land 987 pleased, might be used for the registration of his deed. It had the advantage of being so far compulsory, inasmuch as that if the register did not contain an account of the particular transactions to which the land was last subject, any other person who had transactions with the land subsequently might register and take priority of the person who had not registered. This registry had been in operation for a century and a-half. There was a registry in each Riding of the county, and in the case of one in the West Riding there was the additional advantage of a thoroughly well-kept index. There was no difficulty in searching, and the registry, which had practically become almost a registry for titles, was, for business purposes, nearly perfect. What was really wanted, according to his view, was rather a registry of transactions than of titles, since such registry became eventually a registry of titles also. In dealing with this question, he considered one of the first duties of the country was to take the example of the West Riding of Yorkshire.

§ MR. RYLANDS
remarked, that if the Vote passed it would be under protest. He did not suppose his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) would press his Motion to a division. If the Vote passed that evening, it should be clearly understood that it would not be brought forward next year in the same shape. He hoped the Committee, when it came to the consideration of this matter, would deal with it in a very broad and decided way. What had been done had only been to touch the fringe of a very great question. He believed the country would not be satisfied unless there was some system of compulsory registration of titles. This would greatly facilitate the transfers of land; and he hoped that if the Committee passed the Vote that night some different system would be adopted, or that the Committee would not be pressed to pass it next year.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
asked, why the Land Registry Office, which had been shown to have failed entirely in its operation, should be continued? He objected to the adoption of the Scotch system, which was well suited, no doubt, to Scotch requirements, but was not wanted in this part of the Kingdom, where there was a dislike to registration. 988 He thought that this Office, which everyone admitted to be a dead failure, should not be continued.

§ MR. MELDON
thought it had been demonstrated that this system, or this attempted system, had been a failure, and that being granted, there was no use in continuing this Vote year after year. It had been said that there were other experiments to be tried in the way of registration of land, but he thought the continuance of the present system would only endanger the success of any other measure that might be produced. Large experiments had already been tried, and the system in Scotland and Ireland had been perfectly successful; but it was to be remembered that in Ireland they had a system for recording titles as well as deeds. He asked, why should the Committee continue this wanton expenditure of money in trying to keep up a system admitted by everyone to have failed? He considered the discussion of that evening would be eminently useful, and hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal would go to a division, and take the opinion of the Committee as to whether this expense should go on.

§ MR. WHITWELL
had no intention of raising a discussion upon the question of land titles in general. It had been admitted that Lord Westbury's Act of 1867 had failed, and that the Act of 1875 was also a failure; but, as the Attorney General had pleaded for a respite only, he thought the poor Court must have it as far as he (Mr. Whitwell) was concerned, on the full understanding that execution be inflicted next year, unless it could really show such good arguments as would induce the House to continue its existence. The Attorney General had said he believed the Court was a convenience to some parties who had registered their titles; but he must say that the House did not vote money for the benefit of individuals, and, therefore, that argument was inapplicable.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, there had been no failure with regard to the registration of deeds in Scotland, where the moment a man purchased property of any kind, be it great or small, it was registered; and, unless it were registered, there was no security at all, because the person who sold it to him might fraudulently go and sell it to another, and if that person 989 who had no moral title should put it on the record, he could secure the property.

§ MR. BIGGAR
asked if the Committee were to continue a system of spending money to the extent of £5,000 or £6,000 a-year? They had been told that the fees of the Court were very high, and that being the case, the amount of business transacted by the three clerks must be merely nominal. He thought they would be only doing their duty by doing away with the whole establishment.

§ MR WHEELHOUSE
hoped the Government would take some steps to regulate this Vote, at all events, as far as the Metropolitan district was concerned. The City of London nobly took upon itself its own expenses in this matter. He admitted that the Courts did their work thoroughly, fairly, and well; but he did not, and never could, understand upon what earthly principle the Metropolitan district was allowed to take all the expenses of stipendiary magistrates, salaries, and the providing and re-building of courts out of the Imperial fund of the Exchequer, dealing with them as a question of Imperial expense and revenue; whereas, if any one of the country districts required stipendiary magistrates, the town itself was rated for the purpose of providing both the buildings and the salaries. He thought the fairest plan would be to deal with the question of stipendiary magistrates in the country in the same way as they were dealt with in the Metropolitan districts. At all events, what was fair for one was fair for another. The present system, as regarded the country districts, was the most unfair system possible. Supposing that they had Courts and stipendiary magistrates in Leeds, they would be paid for out of the rates of Leeds; but, in the districts around London, it was 990 a totally different thing. If it were right for one district to have this money, it was right for the other. The county districts were called upon to pay not only their local rates for this purpose, but their contribution to the Imperial Revenue for Metropolitan purposes. He thought that, in fairness, the Metropolitan ratepayers should pay for their own police courts, as was done by the ratepayers of Leeds. One thing or other was right for both; but a divided payment could not be right for either. In his opinion, the expense which appertained to the country districts for these Courts ought to be paid from the Imperial Exchequer; and he hoped the time was fast approaching when they would have but one system, and that system a fair one.

§ MR. WHITWELL
pointed out to the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse), that the Courts did not. cost any money, but made a profit over the expenses, no less than £18,000 having been received as fees.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
asked, if there were any sum included under this head, intended as a special remuneration to that police magistrate who lent himself to the sham inquiry into the case of Sergeant M'Carthy? ["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
The expression used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan cannot be allowed to pass, relating, as it does, to a process of law. I, therefore, call upon him to withdraw it.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
was not aware that the inquiry was a process of law, and could not regard it as anything but a "sham inquiry."

THE CHAIRMAN
I distinctly called upon the hon. Member for Dungarvan to withdraw the expression used. The course now taken by him is disrespectful to the Committee and inconsistent with the usage of Parliament. The hon. Member having failed to withdraw his words, I must submit the conduct of the hon. Member to the Committee.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
I do not know whether the Committee is competent to deal with this question, or whether it will be necessary to refer it to the House; but it is quite clear that it would be improper, if you, Sir, consider a particular expression as out of Order and not consistent with Parliamentary usage, that it should be allowed to pass. If the hon. Member 991 for Dungarvan will withdraw the expression, which I think he must have used inadvertently, not being aware that it was not a proper Parliamentary expression, of course, we need take no further action; but if the hon. Member declines to withdraw, it will be necessary that we should move to report Progress, and submit his conduct to the House.

§ MR. PARNELL
felt very strongly on this point himself, and certainly agreed with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. It had, however, been ruled to be out of Order. The people of Ireland also considered that this inquiry was of the nature described by the hon. Member. ["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
I must point out to the hon. Member, that he must not enter into a discussion of the merits of that question. I understood the hon. Member to rise for the purpose of speaking to a point of Order.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought the point of Order had already been ruled by the Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN
I laid down what I believed to be the Rule of this House with regard to the language to be used in this House. I called on the hon. Member for Dungarvan to withdraw an expression which he used, and which I considered unbecoming. The hon. Member having refused to withdraw that expression, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose and further called upon him to withdraw. I expected that the hon. Member would at once have withdrawn that expression; but as the hon. Member for Meath rose, I presumed he was going to speak to a point of Order.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the ruling of the Chairman was that it was not in Order to make that charge—namely, a charge of "sham inquiry"—against a judicial process. But the inquiry was not a judicial process. It was true that a judicial process had taken place in Dublin, but that was in the form of a coroner's inquest; but the inquiry directed by the Government was not a judicial process.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
I rise to Order. I understand the question before the Committee is not what was the character of the inquiry, but whether the hon. Member for Dungarvan, having been called upon 992 by the Chairman to withdraw a certain expression, ought or ought not to accept the ruling of the Chair, and whether the ruling of the Chair is or is not to be supported?

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
had inferred that the question of this inquiry was to have been brought forward at a later stage. With reference to the point of Order, it seemed to him that the Chairman had looked upon the expression "sham inquiry," as not merely reflecting upon the police magistrate who conducted it, but upon the Government who authorized that inquiry.

THE CHAIRMAN
It is not in Order for the hon. Member to enter into a discussion on the expression which I called upon the hon. Member to withdraw, as appearing to me improperly applied to a legal proceeding conducted by a public official. I must now again call upon the hon. Member for Dungarvan to withdraw that expression.

MR, O'DONNELL
said, he had great respect for the ruling of the Chair, and the reason he objected to withdraw was that he thought the Chairman was not acquainted with the real facts of the case. Out of respect for the ruling of the Chair, he would withdraw the words "sham inquiry," and for "sham" would substitute "unreal"—the unreal inquiry. He would ask if there appeared in this Vote any special remuneration to the police magistrate who lent himself to the unreal inquiry into the death of the late Colour Sergeant M'Carthy? ["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
The words I ruled to be out of Order were "lent himself to a sham inquiry." It was not merely "sham inquiry" that I objected to, but the imputation cast upon a judicial proceeding by the expression that a magistrate had lent himself to a sham inquiry.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
What I say now is, that it was an unreal inquiry.

THE CHAIRMAN
It is not for me, but for the Committee, to say how far the explanation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan is satisfactory to the Committee.

§ MR. DILLWYN
asked, where and how, in the case of an hon. Member being convinced that an inquiry had been improperly conducted in any part of the country, such inquiry could be impeached except in that House?

THE CHAIRMAN
The House would have abundant opportunities of censuring even the conduct of the Judges of the land by a distinct Motion to that effect. It is only my duty, as Chairman, in preserving Order in discussions in Committee, to protect, as far as I can, the Committee from any random expressions implying gross misconduct in the magistracy in the country. There is no question that any hon. Member can bring forward this matter in the form of a Motion.

§ MR. HOPWOOD,
with all respect to the ruling of the Chair, ventured to ask whether there were any limits to the freedom of speech with which hon. Members might debate on any subject? They found fault with the Estimates. They did not wish to do so in rude language, which would provoke retort and cause a breach of Order; but he appealed to the Chairman, for whose conduct in the Chair all had great respect, and would ask whether an Amendment, made in deference to the ruling of the Chair—respectfully, and, as he believed, unreservedly, made—was not sufficient to satisfy the dignity of the House and the Chair?

§ MR. O'DONNELL
wished to add, that if remuneration of this nature appeared in the Vote, he should have felt obliged to challenge the Vote, and the statement he had made had no casual reference to any official, but contained the pith of his objection to the Vote. ["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
replied that the hon. Member for Dungarvan appeared to be under a misapprehension. Objection was taken not merely to the words "sham inquiry," but to the statement that a London magistrate had lent himself to improper and illegal inquiry. The hon. Member would, no doubt, see that the best course for him to adopt was to retract the whole expression.

MR. SULLIVAN
sympathized with the question the hon. Member for Dungarvan wished to raise. He had evidently used a phrase merely to strengthen his argument, without intending to make any remark hurtful to a public functionary. Such an idea was, no doubt, quite foreign to the mind of the hon. Member, although the words conveyed a natural inference which appeared to infringe on the amenities of debate. His hon. Friend had, therefore, better withdraw them. He himself believed 994 the inquiry to be unreal to a certain extent. No doubt, the magistrate acted in good faith; but there were circumstances surrounding the case which made it unreal. He, however, strongly advised his hon. Friend to withdraw the words objected to.

§ MR. BIGGAR
considered that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was justified in using the pointed language he had employed, and he did not think anything the hon. Member had said was of sufficient importance to occupy so much of the time of the House or to give rise to a formal Vote of Censure. He was not a critical judge of peculiar modes of expression; but in this case too much had been made of the words used by his hon. Friend.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
To put an end to this dispute, if you will allow me, Mr. Raikes, although I still believe you are under a misapprehension with regard to the view I should have, if necessary, developed, I beg to withdraw the whole expression.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, they must have an answer to the question, whether any of this Vote was to be spent in defraying the expenses of the unreal inquiry into the death of Colour Sergeant M'Carthy?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
replied, that this Vote covered the salaries of the police magistrates of London, and the salary of the magistrate in question was included, but there was no addition to the sum voted last year.

§ MR. PARNELL
asked, that when a Supplementary Vote was brought forward, whether the special amount for the expenses of this magistrate in connection with the inquiry would be indicated?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
Certainly; I have nothing to conceal in this matter; and should a Supplementary Estimate be necessary—I do not think it will—the Vote will appear in its proper place.

§ MR. PARNELL
Then, if no Estimate is necessary, these expenses will be paid out of some other Vote; and, if that is so, I am determined to take a division on every Vote which has any possible reference to this inquiry. It will save the time of the Committee, if the Government will let us know which Vote these expenses come under.

MR. SULLIVAN
also would like the Secretary of State for the Home Department to state in what form the expense of the inquiry would be brought before the House. If the present time was not the proper occasion on which to discuss the matter, when would their opportunity come? He wished to be real and earnest, and would not take up the time of the Committee then, if they could have a fair and legitimate opportunity at another time.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that these Estimates were prepared before Parliament actually met, and included all the expenses thought necessary; but the question of the inquiry into the death of Sergeant M'Carthy arose afterwards, and these Estimates, therefore, had nothing to do with that inquiry. He need not say anything in defence of the magistrate appointed to make the inquiry, because he stated at the time the name of the gentleman to whom he should refer the matter, and no objection was made, or could have been made, by anyone. Of course, it was not a legal inquiry, for there was not a person in England who could have, under the circumstances, taken evidence on oath, except a special Act of Parliament had been passed for the express object. The gentleman he selected to make the inquiry was fully competent to do so, and he should be prepared to defend him when the proper time came.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
That clearly establishes the fact that the Chairman was incorrect in his description of the proceedings as a legal 996 inquiry. ["Order, order!"] Yes; the Chairman described it as "a process of law," and the Secretary of State for the Home Department now says it was not a legal inquiry. ["Order!"]

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
ventured to submit that it was impossible to conduct their Business, if their Chairman were to be subjected to such remarks. The hon. Member would see that his observations were of such a character that he ought to withdraw them.

§ MR. PARNELL
asked, out of what funds were the expenses of this inquiry to be paid? He did not understand how such an inquiry could be held without expense, and he wanted to know where the money was to come from?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, the Vote which was then before the Committee had been prepared before the inquiry into the death of Sergeant M'Carthy was even asked for; but that was hardly the time to discuss what the future Estimates of the Government would be. He would take care that when the proper Vote came before the Committee the matter should be shown. The present Vote did not, and could not, contain any reference to this particular matter. It referred to the salaries of the magistrates in England, and the expenses of police magistrates were charged on the Consolidated Fund.

§ MR. DILLWYN
wished for some explanation as to the increased amount of the Vote.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
remarked, that at first the police expenses were raised by rates, but now a portion of the cost was paid out of the National Exchequer.

§ MR. WHITWELL
had hoped that this Vote would have been modified, and that the Secretary of State for the Home Department would have been able to find time to deal with this question. 997 The amount asked for was an enormous sum, and the number of police in many places was far above the number really required.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, the matter had occupied the serious consideration of the Government, but the increase in the number of police arose from the centralization of the populations in large towns. The Home Office endeavoured to get the Returns of the Police from all parts of the Kingdom by the end of the October Quarter, and then a comparison was made upon which the Estimate was founded. There was, however, a natural growth of the police force, in consequence of the growth of the population in large towns; but he hoped that the system now adopted would, by degrees, bring the wants of the different districts under the control of the Home Office, and then a great saving would be effected.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
drew the attention of the Committee to the question of the Scotch police. In many parts of Scotland there were more police than were wanted; and it was, in his opinion, a mistake, on the part of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to regulate the number of police by the population. It was a melancholy fact that, notwithstanding the augmented grant, and the additional order which prevailed throughout Scotland, the number of policemen was steadily increasing; and that at a greater rate than the ratio of the population. It was also a remarkable circumstance, that, in the county which he had the honour to represent—Forfarshire—the inhabitants were now paying—or, at least, were paying last year—as much for the police force as they did before there was any grant given by Government at all. He desired to impress upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department the necessity of exercising a vigilant check upon the increase to which he had referred. If that increase went on at the rate it had been doing of late years, it would very soon absorb the additional Government grant, which would then, instead of being a relief to local burdens, be found to be no assistance whatever.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he must remind the hon. Member who had just spoken that he had alluded to a case which did not appear on the Estimates at all, There was no grant 998 given to localities in which the police had not reached a certain standard. At the same time, he thought the Committee would thoroughly agree that the proportion of one policeman to every 3,000 of the population—except in places where the people were of the most orderly character—was somewhat insufficient. As to Scotland, more applications had been received from that country itself for an increase of men than from almost any other part of the United Kingdom; and he was afraid it was in resisting some of those applications, that the Home Office had made itself a little distasteful to certain localities.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, he could bear testimony to the fact that the Home Office had tried in every way to keep down the increase in the police force to which allusion had been made. From the position he held in connection with the Lancashire magistrates, he knew that those gentlemen thought they had great reason to complain of the Home Office, because of the difficulties it had placed in their way in obtaining an additional number of constables. In that case, the application for an increased force did not come from the Chief Constable of the county, or from the Government Inspector, but from the local authorities spread over various parts of Lancashire. But, while it was only fair and just to the Government to say that they had tried as much as possible to keep down the number, he desired to remark that he did not think they should lay down a rule that there should be a certain number of policemen to the population. Population differed in different portions of the country; and some districts were more orderly than others, and could do with fewer policemen.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, there was no such fixed rule as the hon. Gentleman appeared to imagine. There was a certain ratio which was regarded and acted upon as much as possible; but it necessarily varied throughout boroughs and counties.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
said, he did not blame the Government for the gradual increase which had taken place in this Vote; but he desired to point out the moral of their policy in giving a large additional grant to the police force in various parts of the country. Many hon. Members well knew—he knew perfectly well—places where, up to a certain time, 999 the local authorities were quite content with a smaller number of police than they now possessed; but whenever the tempting bait of the Government paying half, or whatever the sum might be, was held out, Town Councils in different parts of the country said—"Oh, it does not matter now; the Government provide so much!" To people who spoke in that way must be added those timid persons who said—"Here we are, 1,000 of a population, and there are only two or three policemen to protect us." In that way, the Vote was gradually increasing under the influence of strong temptation.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, there could be no doubt that, in the old days, there was a great indisposition to supply additional policemen, and many of his Predecessors had had to use strong efforts in order to school some districts up to the proper mark. When this extra Vote came into operation, it was determined that, as far as possible, the effect of the Government grant should not be in any way to increase the applications for police from the various localities throughout the country; and before he came into Office his Predecessors had forced upon local authorities the necessity of keeping up their forces to the proper standard. It was quite true that formerly it was thought there ought to be a policeman to every 1,000 of the population; but that was all past and gone. That was not the rule or standard by which the Government now acted, in any shape or form. They took into consideration, not only the population, but the area over which that population extended; and, if hon. Gentlemen opposite had only witnessed the amount of pressure which had been brought to bear, not by Inspectors, but by the localities themselves, in order to an increase of the police force, they would not only have had some idea of the amount of labour which the consideration of their applications entailed, but they would have found that the number of those applications which had been made and refused was enormous. No doubt there had been an increase in the Vote; but it was to be remembered that there had also been an increase in the population. Then, again, in former days, it was only necessary to certify to the Treasury that the police were efficient; but now there was not only a certificate of efficiency 1000 required, but a certificate setting forth that there were not more men connected with the force than was absolutely necessary. He knew one borough in Lancashire where there had been a great fight on this subject. It was suspected that the authorities of that borough were making a sudden application on account of the increased Government grant; and it was pointed out to them that, in that case, either their police force must have been inefficient before, or they were attempting to make a raid upon the Government. There had been, as he had said, a great fight; and it was only after the most strict and careful scrutiny that that borough received any increased grant at all.

§ MR. MACDONALD
said, he observed that in 1877–8 the Inspector of Scotland was paid £700. Now, the Estimate asked for was £850, showing an addition of £150. He should like to have some explanation in regard to this increase.

§ MR. RAMSAY
thought that if on no other ground than that of simple fairness, the paying of an efficient public servant in Scotland at the same rate as a similar public servant received in England amply justified itself.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, the salaries of the Inspectors in England had been raised from £750 to £850 a-year, in consequence of their having been long in the service, and of the increased amount of work which they had to perform. When that was done, the Scotch Inspector, whose duties were equally arduous, and who was equally a valuable public servant, was placed on the same footing as his English brethren. Previously, the Scotch Inspector had been in receipt of £50 less than those gentlemen.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY,
adverting to the point which he had formerly raised as to the state of matters in Scotland with regard to the police force, said, that while the local authorities were the best judges as to the number of men necessary to preserve peace and order in the different boroughs, those boroughs were much tempted to increase that number in order to obtain the Government grant. That view of the case was confirmed by the last Report of the Inspector General, who also pointed out that in some places the policemen did not get sufficient wages, and that in others their clothing might be better, and so on. All this, of 1001 course, tended to increase the cost of maintaining the force, and constituted, it might be, a mild, but still a very effective, form of compulsion. Local authorities were, practically, told—"If you do not attend to these matters we will be obliged to declare you inefficient, and you will get none of the Government grant."

MR. ROWLEY HILL
remarked that the system of subventions in aid of local rates was soon bearing the fruits anticipated by those who opposed such aids by the central Government—namely, in promoting local extravagance. Formerly, when the local funds were charged with three-fourths of the cost of maintaining the police, it was difficult for inspectors to induce local authorities to provide sufficient men to render the force efficient; but now, when the Treasury paid half the cost of the police, the Home Secretary informed the Committee that it was needful to curb the disposition of the local authorities to employ an unnecessary number of police, and thereby to make a raid upon the Treasury.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that were it not that there was a Royal Commission now sitting to inquire into the whole system of the discipline, the management, and the working of the Penal Servitude Laws, and also into the desirability of instituting some independent system of inspection other than that which now existed, he should have felt it to be his duty to take a division against the whole of this Vote. He had been for several years—ever since, indeed, he first looked into the question of punishment by penal servitude, and the method of its administration—very much impressed with the strong necessity which there was for reformation. Of course, he did not intend to deny, in the slightest degree, that the subject was a very difficult one. At the same time, he could not think that the way in which the Penal Servitude 1002 Acts had been framed, or the manner in which they had been carried out, had been calculated to diminish the inherent difficulty of the whole question. Hon. Members knew that in the old times prisoners in England were exceedingly badly off—as, indeed, they were in most other countries as well. The labours of Howard were most successful in bringing about a reformation in sanitary conditions; but he ventured to think that, in some respects, the treatment to which prisoners received into those penal servitude establishments had been exposed in their own time, and within the last few years, exceeded in atrocity any to which Howard had directed his attention with so much benefit. With regard to those establishments, he had always insisted on two pressing wants—namely, the want of independent inspection, and the want of greater guarantees and safeguards, laid down by law, for the proper treatment of prisoners, and for securing them against ill-usage by the warders or other persons to whose authority they were intrusted. No one who had compared the Statutes which governed the penal servitude establishments with those which governed county and borough gaols, could have failed to notice the great difference which existed between them in those two respects—the question of inspection and the question of statutory guarantees. The reason for that was very obvious. The county and borough gaols were part of an old English system. The method in which they were managed had grown up to be an institution, and had extended itself with the institutions of the country. In fact, it was part of the local life of England. But penal servitude establishments were on an entirely different footing. They were instituted when transportation was abolished, in order that places might be found to which prisoners who were under that sentence might be sent; but, instead of the careful guarantees with which legislation had surrounded the health and good condition of prisoners in county and borough gaols, they found in the penal servitude Acts an entire absence of any such safeguards or checks. He believed it was owing to this that there had been so many instances, within their own knowledge and recollection, of horrible treatment to prisoners confined in those convict establishments. His attention had been 1003 directed to this question in a very special way; because, owing to the faulty condition of the law of this country, it was not possible for them to make any distinction in the treatment of political prisoners who were sentenced to penal servitude and the treatment of prisoners who were convicted of other crimes and offences. That being the case, it so happened that when there was any disturbance in Ireland—when there was any attempt at insurrection, however moderate its dimensions might be—there was a batch of prisoners sentenced to penal servitude for life, or for a period of years, and those prisoners were sent off to Chatham or Portland with the commonest and most ordinary convicts. That, he thought, was a great mischief. It brought discredit on the Government of the country in the first place; and, in the second place, it forced men of pure minds, who in no way required that which was designed for ordinary convicts, to undergo an amount of suffering and discipline which could do them no good, and which could only tend to brutalize them—if, indeed, such natures could be brutalized. He had seen men who had been convicted of political offences and sentenced, as the case might be, to five, seven, or ten years' penal servitude, associated with the worst criminals. The men to whom he referred were men of amiable and gentle dispositions, whom one would almost think it a pity to shut up at all, or to submit to any corrective discipline. But it so happened; and he dealt with the question as he found it. He knew—and other Irish Members knew—that men who had been convicted of political offences had to herd with murderers and wife-beaters; and any hon. Member who took part in voting money to maintain such a system as that, lent himself as an accessory to a state of things which should not exist. As he had already stated, there was a Royal Commission sitting on the whole question; and he was, therefore, content for the present year to await the result of that Commission. But there were one or two features in the present Vote which he could not pass over in silence. They were features which showed that certain individuals who were in authority over those prisoners had scandalously and shamefully carried out their trust, and that they were not really fit for the 1004 common exercise of the functions which they were supposed to perform. He observed that the salary of the Surveyor General of Prisons and Chairman of Directors was put down at £1,000, and already two Votes on account had been made. He altogether objected to the conduct of this official, and therefore begged to move the reduction of the salary by so much as had not yet been, voted.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must name the precise amount by which he proposes to reduce the Vote.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought there had already been voted about four months' salary, and therefore he would propose to reduce the Vote by £600. He did so for this reason. Without going into the merits of the M'Carthy case, he would incidentally remark that he looked upon the Surveyor General of Prisons and Chairman of Directors as, in a considerable sense, responsible for that man's death, because he refused to forward to the proper quarter the recommendation of the medical officer of Chatham Prison that M'Carthy ought to be sent to Working Invalid Prison. M'Carthy was consequently left at Chatham Prison, when, according to proper medical authority, he ought to have been, sent to Working.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
only wished to say a few words on this matter. He quite admitted that as far as the Penal Servitude Acts were concerned, when they were first started, the whole thing was a matter of experiment. Transportation had been given up, and it was necessary to find a substitute, and this was done by passing the Penal Servitude Acts. Those Acts had now been in existence for a considerable time, and from matters brought under his notice, he considered he was justified in allowing an Inquiry into their operation. Therefore, he appointed a Commission, and he was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say he would not fully enter in the Acts 1005 until the Report of that Commission had been made. He believed it would be a Report drawn up with very great care; and certainly its authors were Gentlemen who were thoroughly competent to deal with the subject. He had not risen, however, so much for the purpose of making these observations, as to refer to some remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman with regard to a gentleman who had long served the State in many offices, and who, he believed, had acted most thoroughly well in all he had done. He did not believe there was a higher-minded or better public servant in England than Sir Edmund Du Cane, Surveyor General of Prisons; and he (Mr. Cross) would be unworthy of his position if, for one moment, he allowed the observations of the hon. Member to pass unnoticed, and refrained from saying that a more hardworking, more humane, and more devoted public servant was not to be found than Sir Edmund Du Cane.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
did not wish to enter into a disputation about the humanity of the official in question, but would confine himself to referring to the remarkable error of judgment which he committed in refusing to forward to the proper tribunal the recommendation of the competent medical authority that Sergeant M'Carthy ought to be removed from Chatham to Working. Instead of doing his duty, he left the dying man to his fate. To say the least of it, this was a serious error of judgment, and threw unpleasant light upon the manner in which that prison official discharged his duty. Therefore, just as the right hon. Gentleman felt himself compelled to get up and defend Sir Edmund Du Cane, so his hon. Friend the Member for Meath had a right to say that, in his opinion, and that of the majority of the Irish Members, this official had been guilty of conduct which called for the most earnest protest.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
would not refer to any particular official, for he did not pretend to say there were not as distinguished and eminent gentlemen at the head of the Convict Departments as were to be found in any other Departments of the State; but he ventured to think that their rules and regulations very often led to unfortunate results, and it was much to be regretted that they placed such a degree of irresponsible 1006 power in the hands of the warders. If a prisoner committed a breach of prison rules, however slight, and the warder complained of it, the convict was sentenced to "three days' cells;" and very often he never complained for fear of having that punishment increased. They ought to endeavour to prevent suffering of that kind, when their desire was to reform.

§ MR. HIBBERT,
before the Vote itself was agreed to, desired some explanation as to the Colonial Convict Establishments. He saw that this year the grant had been increased, which had not been the case for many years. He should like to know the cause of this increase. He had always understood that the number of persons who were in the Colonies, and who had been transported there, was gradually decreasing, and, therefore, that the grant became less every year. Now, however, he found that they were called upon to make an additional grant. His own opinion was, that the best thing they could do would be to come to some agreement with the Colony to get rid of the grant altogether.

§ MR. WHITWELL
would also like to draw attention to the same subject. It appeared that they had 300 prisoners in Western Australia, and their expenses amounted to no less than £31,000, or over £100 for each prisoner. For these prisoners there were no less than 14 chaplains, which seemed to be out of all proportion, especially when he found they only needed one surgeon. There were 29 warders, and the cost of superintendence was double that of victualling. He joined with his hon. Friend in hoping the Government would come to some agreement with the Colony to put an end to the annual grant.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
could assure the Committee this was a subject which had now for some time occupied the attention of the Home Office and the Treasury, with a view to seeing whether something might not be done to do away with this large item. The amount was being gradually reduced, 1007 and the staff diminished, because the convicts died. What was the cause of the particular increase this year he could not at present say.

§ MR. PARNELL
directed the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to an item in the Vote for payment to a Coroner. He had always understood that a Coroner was a functionary to a great degree independent of the Government. He had never known of a Coroner being paid by the Government. He supposed this Coroner was the Coroner for the county. He received £150 from the Government for extra duties thrown upon him by reason of Dartmoor Prison being in the county. This was a most improper application of Government money, and he trusted that it would not be continued.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
believed that this sum represented the contribution paid by the Prison for inquests held by the county Coroner. The prison authorities did not contribute in any other way to the salary of the Coroner.

MR. SULLIVAN
said, that the money ought to be paid to the Grand Jury of the county. It was most objectionable, and even dangerous, that a Coroner, who ought to be independent, and to be able to put his finger upon, and denounce, abuses, should be in the pay of the Government, who, so to speak, owned the prisons. The money should, at all events, be paid through the rates.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
was not at all satisfied that it was not so paid; but he very much agreed with the hon. and learned Member, and he would look into the matter.

§ MR. RYLANDS
pointed out that this was the only prison in connection with which there was a charge for a Coroner.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he was informed, though he could not say whether his authority was a very good one—he had no reason, however, to doubt it—that at inquests in these convict prisons the juries were often composed of employés of contractors, tradesmen, and other persons having dealings with prisons. That was very improper, and appeared to him to indicate too much laxity in these matters. As the Secretary of State for the Home Department had said he would inquire into the question as to this Coroner's payment, he would not pursue the subject.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he was sorry to trouble the Committee with another division; but he felt that he could not allow the Vote to pass without protesting once more against the conduct of one of the highest medical officers of the service. He referred to Dr. Burns. He did not wish to go into the old story of Daniel Reddin. He would only say that Dr. Burns was officer of the prison in which Daniel Reddin was tortured with a galvanic battery, to find out whether he was malingering or not. Reddin was now a confirmed paralytic, and he (Mr. Parnell) believed Dr. Burns was greatly responsible for his state. He had never found out anything to his good. He moved to reduce the Vote by the amount of Dr. Burns's salary—£450.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
pointed out, that the Committee was without any information about the prisons transferred. The number and names of the prisons were not given in the Estimate in the hands of hon. Members, nor were the names or numbers of the prisons that were to be given up stated. The Government must have had some difficulty in preparing correct Estimates for the present year; but the Committee ought to know the estimated cost of each gaol during the last year, so that it might have been compared with the cost of these establishments in future years. The Estimates for conveyance and escort of prisoners seemed small. He understood that the Government were going to pay the cost of conveying prisoners backwards and forwards to different gaols, and if this 1009 were so, the Estimate seemed a very low one. There was also good reason for asking how the sum of £25,000 for new buildings was going to be laid out, and upon what prisons? He also wished to know when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cross) intended to give some intimation as to the time at which the different localties would be paid by the Government for the gaols they had taken over? This account might be a very complicated one; but the Government ought to give this information as soon as possible.

§ MR. RYLANDS
thought it natural that much interest should be felt in the first Estimate under the new Prisons Act. That Act had been recommended to the House on the ground that it would lead to an important saving in the expenses of prisons, and a greater profit on prison labour. There was now some evidence to show that those who thought the Secretary of State for the Home Department too sanguine, were justified in the opinion that the public advantage anticipated from the Act was not likely to be realized. The right hon. Gentleman anticipated that he would save £50,000 a-year in the cost of prisons. On this first year, the entire saving anticipated by the Department in the most favourable circumstances was only £27,000. As expenditure in Government Departments had a tendency to increase from year to year rather than diminish, this saving was not likely to continue. Upon prison labour, the right hon. Gentleman expected to obtain a similar advantage; but as the extra receipts now estimated were stated at £60,000, the profit expected must be considerably less than £50,000. The average cost of prisoners all over the Kingdom was of great interest. It had been represented by Government as enormous under the old state of things; but he had shown that in Lancashire, prisoners were maintained at the rate of £17 per head. In 1876–7, the cost was £27 per head for all the gaols under the control of the local authorities. That included all the small gaols which were so badly conducted, as well as the large gaols conducted like those in Lancashire. The result of the change which had been made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department was, that while the average cost of each prisoner throughout the Kingdom was, prior 1010 to the passing of the Act, £27 per annum, it now amounted to £25 4s. He quite concurred, he might add, with the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) as to the expediency of having much fuller information laid before the House on the subject than was furnished by the present Estimates. With regard to the Act itself, he thought if even it turned out that it worked somewhat economically, it was far from being a satisfactory measure; but he must confess that he had no great expectation, looking at the Estimates before the Committee, that it would be productive of economy.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, he did not wish to discuss the policy of the Prisons Act. What he had risen to suggest was, that if not inconvenient, the Government should postpone the Vote, in order that they might be in a position to give the Committee more detailed information with respect to it. It was of the utmost importance that, in dealing with the Vote for the first time, the Committee should be made acquainted with what had actually been done under the Act; but, as matters at present stood, they knew little beyond what the number of prisoners was. Now, there would, in his opinion, be great advantage in having before them a statement, showing the number of warders and officers of every description employed in connection with their prisons, and giving an account generally of the way in which those prisons were managed by the Government.

§ MR. ASSHETON
expressed his regret that the Committee, owing to the absence of the necessary information, were not in a position to form a judgment as to whether the Government had or had not carried out those financial reforms which they promised would be the result of the passing of the Prisons' Act. He should like, he might add, to know why it was that the very onerous duties of Chairman of the Board of Directors of Ordinary Prisons and those of the Chairman of the Directors of Convict Prisons were discharged by one gentleman? So far as he could see, it would give any one person enough to do to perform the former duties properly.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
thought it was perfectly natural that the inquiries which had just been addressed to him 1011 should have been made. He would answer them as far as he was able; but it was absolutely impossible for him to furnish the detailed information which was asked for, inasmuch as the whole system of prison management was in a transition state. During the past year, 37 prisons had been closed in England, and seven or eight more would probably be closed within another month. That process, as the Committee would at once perceive, involved a change of warders and other officers, and a great many local arrangements which could not be put on paper until next year. By that time he hoped to be in a position to place the Estimates before the Committee in such a way that they would be able to ascertain for themselves what had really been done. He might observe that the Estimate which was now submitted to the Committee was less than that which had been put forward when the Prisons Act was under discussion, and next year he expected it would be found that a considerable saving had been effected under the new system. At all events, the account would be set forth as clearly as possible, so that hon. Members might form their own conclusions. He, for one, had not the slightest fear of the result. As to the new buildings which might be required, no Estimate could be given for the first year, and he might also state that arrangements were being actively made with respect to the payments for discontinued prisons. In answer to the Question of his hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Assheton), he could only say that the point to which it related had been fully argued when the Prisons Bill was before the House, and that it was deemed wise to keep in view the desirability of having the authorities of the two classes of prisons amalgamated. The staffs of both were, as far as possible, being worked together to save expense; and, in order to accomplish that object, it was thought advisable that one gentleman should be the Chairman of the two Boards to which his hon. Friend alluded.

§ MR. WHITWELL
felt that it was out of the question that anything like detailed information could be laid before the Committee this year on the subject of the Vote. Indeed, he was surprised that so many details had already been supplied.

§ MR. MACDONALD,
referring to the item of £500 a-year for remuneration to the Secretary for personal services, asked what was meant by such services, of which he regretted to find mention made repeatedly throughout the Estimates.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, the personal services rendered in the present instance were connected with the organization of the new system under the operation of the Prisons Act.

§ MR. PARNELL
should feel it to be his duty at some future time to direct attention to the new Rules for the regulation of prisons. As to the general question he was of opinion that, perhaps, one authority would be sufficient for the management of the two classes of prisons.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that the Rules to which the hon. Gentleman referred had now been in force for some time, and that their operation was being narrowly watched by the Government, with the view of seeing whether they could not be amended. Immediately after Whitsuntide he hoped to be able to lay upon the Table Supplementary Rules for the purpose of meeting certain deficiencies which were found to exist.

§ MR. W. HOLMS
pointed out that in Scotland advantage had been taken of the Industrial Schools Act to, perhaps, a greater extent than in any other part of the Kingdom. While, however, the allowance per week for each child in England and Ireland was 5s., it was only 4s. 6d. in Scotland. That, he thought, was not fair to the latter country; he believed the increased expenditure in England arose very much from the want of economical management. There was no good reason, he contended, why Scotland should be 1013 placed in that respect on a different footing from either England or Ireland.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, that the circumstances of Scotland were somewhat different from those which prevailed in England. In the former country, for instance, the children could be fed on a diet of oatmeal, which was not found to answer in this country. The cost of maintenance was, therefore, greater in the one country than in the other.

§ MR. RAMSAY
thought the grant should either be reduced in England or increased in Scotland. There was no good reason to justify the difference which existed in the payments made for the support of industrial schools in the two countries.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
hoped the hon. Gentleman would not divide the Committee on the question, which, he might inform him, was under the consideration of the Government. He would remind him that these industrial schools had conferred upon the country some of the greatest benefits of modern times, and that it would be a pity that anything should be done which would interfere with their usefulness.

§ MR. M'LAREN
ridiculed the idea that the expense of living was smaller in Scotland than in England and Ireland. Those who advanced that argument might just as well say, upon a comparison of the Northern with the Southern counties of England, that it cost more to keep an agricultural labourer in Yorkshire than it did in Devonshire. Each lived upon his earnings, which were very different. It had been proved with regard to Scotland, not that the expense was less, but only that the expenditure was ground down to a lower degree.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
hoped that Irish Members would vote with the Scotch Members on this question, because the argument had frequently been used against the former that the cost of maintenance in Ireland was lower than in any other part of the Kingdom. That argument had been advanced with regard to the salaries of Civil servants, who were paid less in Ireland than in England; and the same contention had been made in refusing to increase the remuneration of national school teachers. It was the policy of hon. Members from Ireland to have the cost of maintenance considered, in the Estimates, as equal all over the Kingdom. He should vote with the Scotch Members, not because he wished to starve poor children either in England or in Ireland, but as a protest against the scale of maintenance being varied in different parts of the Kingdom.

MR. SULLIVAN
hoped the Scotch Members would not vote at all. He understood that the promise made from the Treasury Bench was entirely satisfactory. He objected to the Vote, for the reason that they could not improve the Scotch child by pinching the toes of an English boy or girl.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, although Scotch Members had charged Irish Members with obstruction the other night, he should support them in their objection to this Vote, because he thought they were taking a practical course in ventilating a Scotch grievance at that moment. If they felt they were not fairly treated, it was perfectly open to them to move the reduction of the Vote.

§ MR. RAMSAY
said, that, while it might be true that the Scotch people fully appreciated all that had been said in commendation of their industrial schools, the fact of their appreciation could be no reason for the State giving them less for maintenance than was given to similar institutions in England. He had no desire to have the children pinched or starved. He deprecated any such result; but he did not think it was at all likely to follow from the reduction of the Vote. When the hon and learned Member (Mr. Sullivan) spoke of the favourable consideration promised by the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), he seemed to have forgotten that this was not the first occasion on which the subject had been 1015 dealt with in Committee of Supply. Scotchmen had before waited upon one of Her Majesty's Ministers for the purpose of pressing this claim. If it had been the first time, he would have been glad to accede to the suggestion that there should be no division; but, under the circumstances, he was not inclined to ask the hon. Member (Mr. W. Holms) to withdraw his Amendment, because they had no other means of pressing upon the Committee to place Scotland in the same position as England with regard to this question of maintenance.

§ MR. FRENCH
was inclined to support his Scotch Friends, because he thought they had been hardly dealt with. It was all very well to say that the Scotch child cost less; but that might be the result of better management of the schools. He hoped they would be managed in Ireland and England as well as they were in Scotland.

§ SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY
would like to have a distinct assurance from the Government as to the course they intended to take, for he thought a clear case was made out that injustice had been done to Scotland. The two countries—England and Scotland—ought to be put on an equal footing. If it were understood that the Government would re-consider the question, he should be inclined to ask the hon. Member (Mr. W. Holms) to withdraw his Amendment; because a Motion to reduce an English Vote did not seem a good way to obtain a boon for Scotland.

DR. CAMERON
said, what Scotch Members wanted was equal distribution of State aid. Therefore, he did not think that a case had been made out to induce his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Holms) to withdraw his Amendment. He hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would undertake to give the matter serious consideration, and not allow it to be put off from day to day, without anything being done, which had been the case, to his knowledge, for many years.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, he had endeavoured to assure hon. Members that he would consider this question with a view, if possible, of getting rid of the grievance complained of. He could only leave it to the Committee to accept that assurance, which he now repeated.

§ MR. W. HOLMS
disclaimed any intention of obstructing the Business of the House, as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell).

§ MR. PARNELL
explained, that he had made no charge of obstruction. He had merely said that the hon. Member (Mr. W. Holms) was doing that which Irish Members had been doing who had been charged with obstruction—a charge which they positively disclaimed. He had wished to imply that the hon. Member was within his right.

§ MR. W. HOLMS
had only said that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) had made a suggestion implying that he had taken an obstructive course. He ventured to think that if Irish Members were as economical of the time of the House as Scotch Members, Business would proceed much more rapidly than it did. After the assurance from the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), he would not press his Amendment.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
called attention to the small contribution of the parents towards the maintenance of their children at these industrial schools. Valuable as these institutions were, their cost was very large, and the proportion paid by the parents, he found, did not amount even to one-tenth of the sum expended. Their contribution did not exceed 3d. a-head per week; whereas each child would have cost them from 2s. to 3s. per week if kept at home. A few years ago, attempts were made to remedy this disproportion; and he wished to know whether those endeavours had succeeded, or whether the matter was still under the consideration of the Home Office?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
agreed with the noble Lord as to the necessity, as far as possible, of making the parent liable for the maintenance of the child while he was at the institution; but the noble Lord was quite aware that the difficulties were very great, first, in the magistrates ascertaining the amount which the parent could contribute; and, secondly, the difficulty of collecting the contribution. In consequence of the adoption of a new system, the sum collected had considerably increased.

§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
directed attention to the item for the Training of Boys in Ships. In England there were 774 children for whom 6s. a-head per week was allowed, and in Scotland the number was 706, for whom the same rate of contribution was given by the State. But, so far as Ireland was concerned, not a shilling was allowed for industrial training in ships, because they had no training ship on the Irish coast. There was formerly such a ship at Kingstown, but it was removed, and remonstrances were made in consequence of its removal. Boys had to be sent a considerable distance to one of these training ships, and their parents were obliged to pay the expense of the journey. He wished to know from the Government why the ship had been removed from the port of Kingstown, and why Irish parents were denied facilities which were enjoyed by English and Scotch parents? Unless he received an explanation of this anomaly, he must move the reduction of the Vote by the sum which 6s. a-head per week for 774 boys would represent in the Estimates.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
believed that the shipsin which these 774 boys were trained were at the charge of the local authorities, and the 6s. per head was a contribution in aid of the efforts of the local authorities. The same rule applied to Scotland. The local authorities in Ireland had not, he believed, attempted to establish this mode of industrial training. He supposed the hon. Member (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) referred to some training ships which were maintained on a totally different footing. There were three forms of industrial training—namely, the Reformatory, the Industrial School, and the Training Ship; and towards the cost of training the boys in these institutions the Government contributed, in certain proportions, towards local effort. With regard to the removal of the ship from its moorings at Kingstown, the hon. Member's Question on that point was one which his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) would be better able to answer. All that he could himself say on the subject was, that no Treasury grant applied to such a ship at Kingstown.

§ MR. PARNELL
inquired when the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) proposed to report Progress?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
was reluctant to trespass upon the patience of the Committee, for they had been very industrious that evening; but he should like to conclude the English Votes before reporting Progress. There were two more Votes to consider.

§ MR. HIBBERT
asked a question respecting the Extra Receipts which, in a Vote, were estimated at £5,500, to be obtained from Unions for the maintenance of Lunatic Patients. He was under the impression that all the patients in this Asylum, with perhaps a few exceptions, were criminal lunatics, and as such they should be paid for by the State, and not by the Unions. The charge made to Unions was no less than £60 for each lunatic. He wished to know whether a plan could not be adopted by which lunatics, not of a dangerous character, might be sent to the County Lunatic Asylums, where they could be retained at a cost of from £20 to £25 per head?

§ MR. RAMSAY
complained of the excessive charge of £60 for every lunatic detained at Broadmoor, and compared it with the institution at Perth, where the cost did not exceed £28 a-head per annum. He contended that there was no reason why they should continue to support an institution like that at Broadmoor at such a high rate as £60 per head per annum; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would do well to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) as to placing the bulk of the criminal lunatics in the ordinary County Asylums. Broadmoor compared unfavourably with Perth Asylum with regard to the charges incurred in the medical department, and there was no heathier establishment than that at Perth. He did not know how long the Committee were going to vote these annual sums, in support of extravagance, which benefited neither the criminal lunatics nor the community generally. Although he attached no especial value to anonymous communications, he had received one respecting the administration of affairs at Broadmoor Asylum which was worthy of consideration, because 1019 there was a, primâ facie case against the management of that institution. He hoped the Secretary of State for the Home Department would give the Committee some assurance that progress would be made in remedying the defects in the management.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, no more females were now sent to Broadmoor. The Asylum was only used at present for the detention of males. With regard to the question of construction, he thought Broadmoor Asylum was altogether a mistake. It had been built most extravagantly, and in such a form as rendered it almost impossible to make it economically useful. When the Estimates came in on a former occasion he sent them back, with the intimation that unless they were reduced he should not present them to the House. They had accordingly been reduced by £50,000. If they amounted to the same sum this year, he should return them again. That was the only way in which he could reduce the Estimates. Unless a sufficient reduction could be effected, he thought that Broadmoor had better be turned to some other use. It would hardly be possible to keep the inmates there at as small an expense as at Perth. With reference to the item of £5,500, which represented the receipts from Unions for the maintenance of patients, he feared he could not give, at that moment, the explanation desired by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert); but the sum received this year was, he believed, less than last.

§ MR. HIBBERT
explained the purport of his previous remarks. If the persons detained were criminal lunatics, they ought to be paid for by the State, and not by the Unions; but if the time of their imprisonment had come to an end, and they still continued lunatic, though not of a dangerous character, then they might be remitted to the Unions from which they came.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that had constantly been done.

§ MR. RAMSAY
had taken the trouble to visit Broadmoor Asylum, in company with a gentleman who had no superior as a judge of lunacy questions. Their opinion was that nothing in the form or construction of the building could render necessary or justifiable the great cost that had been incurred. Therefore, the sooner the Secretary of State for the 1020 Home Department submitted to the House a proposal to repeal the Act under which Broadmoor Asylum was established, the better.