CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE. (Hansard, 27 August 1880)

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, he had not the slightest expectation that the Vote would be taken that night, or he would have put down an Amendment on the Paper to make clear the meaning of the reduction he proposed to make. It was to strike out the item of£943 at the bottom of the page, the salary of the second paid Prisons' Commissioner. He would like to tell the Committee the history of the appointment of this Commissioner. After the Conservative Government had resigned in April last, and while they were just waiting for their successors to step into their shoes, they appointed a follower of their own to the position of Commissioner at a salary of£1,000 a-year, and in the course of doing that were able to reward no less than three gentlemen. If this had been a case in which a situation became vacant, and the Public Service required it to be instantly filled, or would be inconvenienced if it remained vacant, then he would not have disputed it, for the exigencies of the Public Service would have justified them; but this was a position which had never been filled before. The late Home Secretary, when he carried through the Prisons Bill for Scotland, took power to appoint two paid Commissioners, but he only appointed one because only one was needed; and from that time until their going out of Office one paid Commissioner only was required for the work. But when the late scramble for rewards took place, this paid Commissionership that might, according to Act of Parliament, be filled up, turned up among other things available for rewards; and they appointed a gentleman to this who had held the office of Sheriff Substitute of Fife, transferring another from Dunfermline to Cupar to take his place, and then filling the Dunfermline appointment with another supporter. By this they were enabled to dispense three rewards to their followers; and this was done after they were practically out of 465 Office. The date, he thought, was the 22nd of May. He had asked the Home Secretary about this, and he had replied in a way that showed he highly disapproved of it, and that he hardly knew what to say about it. It was a most flagitious use of Government patronage. He moved to reduce the amount of the Vote by the sum of£943.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, he was not quite certain whether it would not be best to withdraw the Vote. The charges, being in respect of an appointment made under the late Government, it would be well, perhaps, to give the late Home Secretary the opportunity of defending the appointment.

§ MR. WARTON
said, if the hon. Member was right in his date, the appointment must have been made by the present Government.

§ MR. CHILDERS
said, the appointment was made by the late Government, and the hon. Member was wrong in his date.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, he had not the exact date; but he knew it was done during the period between the resignation of the one Government and the taking the Seals by the other; but he was quite ready either to have the Vote withdrawn, or to divide on this Motion.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
thought it would be best to withdraw it, unless the Committee wished to go on with it. It was right to say that the hon. Gentleman had a little overstated his case. There had been always two Commissioners; but, at first, only one was paid, the other being in receipt of a pension, and, giving his time, rendered valuable assistance. But, of late, he had been unable to do that. That being so, and the other Commissioner being unable to do the whole of the work, a second paid Commissioner was appointed. The Act always intended there should be two; but the original arrangement was made to suit the public purse, and, it not being possible to continue it, the second Commissioner was appointed.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he had been informed, upon very good Scotch authority, that there were a number of officials employed in escorting convicts from Scotland to Ireland. They were paid from£700 to£800 a-year, although their duties might be performed by porters, or warders, who would not be paid so much as the officials he had referred to. He wished to know upon what Vote such a question should be raised, as, in the interests of economy, proper persons should be employed in the work?

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
did not know it came under the Vote for Scotland; but, if the hon. Member would communicate with him, he would be happy to give the necessary information.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
moved to report Progress.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
asked whether Supply would be taken on Tuesday, if not finished on Monday?

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
hoped that Supply would be concluded on Monday.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he had had a Notice on the Paper [for going into Committee, but had deferred it for the convenience of the Government. He would like to bring it on either on going into Committee, or on the consideration of the Report.

§ MR. WARTON
wished to know whether his Motion, which had been standing over for three months, with reference to the Peace Preservation Act in Ireland, could not be brought on on Report?

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
referred hon. Members to the Leader of the House to make arrangements of that kind.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he would be very sorry to detain the Committee unnecessarily; but it was desirable that some understanding should be come to in regard to his Motion. The question as to how he should bring it on, whether 467 on Report or on the Appropriation Bill, and so raise the discussion, was very unimportant as compared with the division which would test the opinion of the House on a matter of extreme importance in the view of events which happened so recently as on the previous day. It was necessary to come to some understanding on the matter.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, it was impossible to make arrangements that night. They were matters for the consideration of the Leader of the House, and should not be dealt with by anybody else, inasmuch as it could not be said what arrangements had been already made If, however, the hon. Member would ask his noble Friend at the Morning Sitting, no doubt some satisfactory answer would be given.

§ MR. COURTNEY
suggested that the question before them would be more properly raised when the Speaker was in the Chair on Monday; and he was afraid that, as a matter of fact, when the Appropriation Bill came up, the hon. Member would not be in Order in raising such a discussion.

§ MR. T. E. O'CONNOR,
stating that a question of Order had been raised during the absence of the Speaker, wished to obtain the Speaker's opinion as to whether his Motion, in reference to "another place," might be brought forward on the Appropriation Bill, and whether a division could then be taken upon it?

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must presume the Motion of the hon. Member refers to the House of Lords. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR signified assent.] I cannot see that that question has any bearing on the Appropriation Bill; and, therefore, as it is not relevant, the Motion cannot be made as an Amendment on that Bill.