CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.

HC Deb 05 August 1881 vol 264 cc1046-100

(17.) £36,281, to complete the sum for Law Charges.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, that before the Vote was passed he wished to put a question, but he did not see anybody present to whom he could put it. The noble Lord the Financial Secretary was an efficient and exemplary public officer; but it would be scarcely fair to question him upon a purely Legal Vote. He would, however, ask the noble Lord one or two questions. First of all, in regard to the Note on page 173, in regard to the alteration of the system of accounting for the expenditure. He wanted to know if the noble Lord could explain why the regular practice had in this case been departed from? The second question was, why the allowance of the War Office Agent at Malta of £75 had been considerably increased; whether the increase had anything to do with the purchase of land at Malta; and, if so, whether he had been officially concerned in a question of the purchase of land at Malta, which for two years or more had kept a number of persons very busily engaged in an extensive correspondence, and whose want of business habits was brought more than once before the Public Accounts Committee? The first question came under sub-head J, in connection with the revision of the Statute Law, and as the consolidation of the statutes had been undertaken, he would like to know from the noble Lord what was the state of the work. The allowance for that purpose had, he perceived, been increased from £150 to £250. If he were not mistaken, he was under the impression that the work was to have been completed before the present date, and for a less sum than had been already voted.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the first question related to the expenditure for criminal prosecutions and quasi- criminal proceedings. It was now the practice to give the net charge in criminal cases, and it had been found desirable to apply the same rule to legal proceedings other than criminal. With regard to Malta, he did not know whether the item referred to had any connection with the purchase of land in that island; but he would ascertain before bringing up the Report. He believed that the Statute Law Commissioners were doing useful work. Every year a Bill was brought in for the repeal of obsolete statutes. There was one on the Paper now, which he hoped hon. Members would allow to become law during the present Session. Thanks to the labours of the Commission, it was hoped before long that we should have all our statutes in an accessible form. The work was proceeding rapidly, and there could be no doubt that it was being done most usefully.

MR. WARTON

said, they all knew that the work of revising the statutes had been going on for several years, and he would not say that what had been done had not been done fairly. But the Bills that were introduced in successive years were really Bills to enable the rules of Court to override the rules that already existed in the Statute Law.

MR. BIGGAR

asked for an explanation of a material increase in one of the salaries mentioned on page 175. The increase appeared to be from £100 to £260 per annum.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the hon. Member would see in the Votes for the Legal Departments many similar instances. They arose from the fact that these various Legal Departments had undergone extensive reorganization, and the salaries had been put upon a more satisfactory footing. It had been thought right to introduce a new scale of salaries altogether.

Vote agreed to.

(18.) £2,021, to complete the sum for the Public Prosecutor's Office.

MR. BYRNE

asked for an explanation in regard to the item for a Messenger on page 176. This year the sum appeared to be £75; but last year it was £450. Was that a saving? Was the salary really reduced to £75?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the office was newly established last year. The allowance of £450 was found to be more than was necessary, and therefore it had been reduced.

MR. WARTON

desired to call the attention of the Committee to the broader topic of the appointment of a Public Prosecutor. He wished to know whether the Government really did believe in a Public Prosecutor or not; be- cause, if they did believe in him, why did they not carry out the Act of 1879, which required that six assistants should be appointed to assist the Public Prosecutor? If, on the other hand, they did not believe in a Public Prosecutor, why not abolish the office at once? The present Public Prosecutor had one assistant instead of six; but owing to the inaction of the Government, and the difficulty they experienced in making up their minds, he had nothing to do. But for the personal weight and influence of the late Recorder of London, Mr. Russell Gurney, and the feeling of respect entertained for him, no Public Prosecutor would ever have been appointed, and up to the present time the Public Prosecutor had, practically, done nothing. He had nothing to say against the gentleman who held that office, personally. He was known to be a very able man indeed; but he wanted to know from the Government if it was intended to continue the office, and, if so, when they intended to give real and thorough effect to it? At present, there were a number of Societies which took upon themselves the duty of instituting prosecutions—a most improper principle, and one which he strongly doubted ought to be allowed to exist. They owed their existence to the absence of a Public Prosecutor; and now that there was a Public Prosecutor, they still existed, and were flourishing, while the office of Public Prosecutor was in practical abeyance. He asked the Government if they intended to continue the office to make it a reality, and not a sham.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, his hon. and learned Friend was under a misapprehension in regard to one fact, and that was in supposing that the staff of the office was less than it was intended to be when the Act of 1879 was passed. The Act of 1879 was passed at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and the staff which now existed was the staff appointed by the right hon. Gentleman, which he considered, at the outset, to be sufficient, and which he appointed in that belief. Therefore, if anyone was to blame for there not being a larger staff, it was the right hon. Gentleman who dealt with the matter when the office was created, and whose Bill it was that created it. He (the Solicitor General) was prepared to say at once that he did not consider that this office of Public Prosecutor was in a satisfactory condition. He did not think it did all the good it might do, although it could not be denied that it had done some good. He would at once say that he thought it not only needed looking into and being thoroughly investigated in order to render it efficient, but, he might add, that it was the intention of the Government to make such an investigation. The matter had not escaped notice, and was seriously engaging the attention of the Government. As regarded the appointment of a Public Prosecutor, it was a matter upon which considerable difference of opinion had existed, and there were many people who considered that it was desirable to have a person filling that office who, nevertheless, did not believe that it was desirable that the whole of the prosecutions of the country should be taken from the hands in which they now were, and be turned over to a single department which should have entire control over the whole of them. That was a scheme which had often been advocated; but it was a scheme which would lead to very great expense without largely increasing the efficiency of the work. It was found impracticable to deal with the large number of persons who had a vested interest in opposing such a scheme, and he was not prepared to say that it would be of very much use if it were carried out. But it was found, under the old system of prosecutions, that in many cases which were brought into Court, there was a grievous failure of justice, because it was the business of no one to see that the prosecution was instituted, or, when instituted, that it was fully carried out. Many cases were dropped or compromised, and it was to remedy that evil that the Act of 1879 was passed, and the office of; Public Prosecutor created. It was to provide that prosecutions should be proceeded with, and not compromised. In that respect, he believed the creation of the office had unquestionably been of some use. He admitted that it had not been of as much use as was originally anticipated; but he believed that it might be rendered still more useful, and it would be the endeavour of the Government to see that it was made fully effective. It was essential that some officer of the kind should exist, whose duty it should be to see that offences did not go unpunished, and who should insist, as the Public Prosecutor had insisted, on a prosecution going on where it would otherwise have been abandoned by persons who cared only for their own interests, and who would willingly have dropped it for the sake of gain to themselves. He did not believe that the office had been as efficient as it might have been, or that it had done all the work that might have been expected from it; but he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) that the matter would not escape the attention of the Government.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. BROADHURST

asked for a Return showing the number of prosecutions conducted by the office of Public Prosecutor. The office had been in existence for two years; and, so far as he was aware, no information whatever had been given as to the work performed there. If the office was to be retained, he thought it was not too much to ask for the Return he had alluded to.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he was exceedingly obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) for raising this question. There was a Public Prosecutor, but no public prosecutions; in other words, they were paying £4,000 and getting nothing for it. He did not wish to say that the office was a sinecure; but it was something very much like it. The Solicitor General having expressed great dissatisfaction at the present state of affairs, he trusted he would follow the matter up and institute a thorough reform.

MR. WARTON

thought that the statement of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, as indicating the intention, of the Government, was, to a great extent, satisfactory; but it did not in one respect quite meet the objection he had raised. He had pointed out that there was only one assistant at the office at the time it was started; and that, although two years had elapsed, there was no increase in this respect. That was one of those little things which showed how matters were going on. Hon. Members would see that the expenses this year had dwindled to one-third of the former amount, which was quite enough to show that the office itself was dwindling away. He thanked the hon. Member for Stoke for his very practical suggestion that a Return should be given of the number of prosecutions.

MR. COURTNEY

wished to point out that, after all, something more had been done in the office than hon. Members supposed. Since it came into operation in January, 1879, to Midsummer last year, 436 cases had passed through it, and the number of prosecutions had been 101; while from Midsummer, 1880, to Midsummer, 1881, the Public Prosecutor was authorized to prosecute in 267 cases. Besides that, advice had been given in 464 cases. This showed a very considerable increase of work over the previous year. Of course, the charge brought by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport required his attention; but the answer was that so far the working of the office had been experimental, and assistants had only been appointed sufficient for the work required to be done.

MR. BIGGAR

said, it was quite a matter of chance whether the Public Prosecutor would take any notice of cases laid before him, or rather, when he had examined into them, whether he would institute a prosecution. Considering the number of serious offences which were committed in England, it seemed very strange that so small a number of cases passed through the office. Of course, he did not know to what extent the office of Public Prosecutor was desirable; but it seemed to him that there must be some person, or class of persons, whose interest it was to do away with the office. He thought that the Law Officers of the Crown, with whom the matter appeared to rest rather than the Home Department, should give the office a fair chance. As it was, according to the Estimates, the whole thing had proved to be a fallacy.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he was glad that the Solicitor General had expressed the feelings which he himself entertained with respect to this office. He did not wish to cast blame upon anyone; on the contrary, he was sure the Public Prosecutor had done his utmost in the cause of justice. But he felt the Government were under responsibility in this matter, and was quite sure that if his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary were present he would join in saying that it was their duty to endeavour to obtain a more certain administration of criminal justice in the country than they had at the present time; and he could assure the Committee that everything that lay in his power should be done to attain that end.

Vote agreed to.

(19.) £116,022, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions.

MR. GREGORY

said, before this Vote was put to the Committee, he should like to have some explanation as to the position of the Clerks of Assize. He understood that this office was to be gradually discontinued, and he believed it would be generally recognized that the duties might be performed by other officials. There was a Clerk of Assize, a Clerk of Indictments, and an Associate; and, according to his experience, all those offices were not necessary for the purpose of Circuit work. He remembered raising the question some years ago as to the discontinuance of the office of Clerks of Assize, when there was a general agreement with his opinion that these officers were ornamental rather than useful; and it was then understood that, as the offices became vacant, they should not again be filled up. Under these circumstances, he should like to know whether that understanding would be carried out, and what was the present position of the officers in question?

MR. WARTON

asked whether, seeing that the Home Circuit had been altered, one Associate was not quite sufficient to do what was really one's work?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

pointed out that in 1868 a Committee had been appointed to consider the duties and salaries of the officers referred to by hon. Members opposite, and they had recommended that, as vacancies occurred, the salaries should be re-considered, and, if possible, reduced. In accordance with that recommendation, many new arrangements had been made.

MR. WARTON

said, the noble Lord had advanced a good general argument; but it did not meet the point of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory). With regard to the question he himself had raised, he had pointed out that as there was practically but one Circuit, two sets of officers were no longer necessary, and his object was to ascertain whether it was contemplated that there should be but one officer when either of the offices became vacant?

MR. GREGORY

said, he wished to explain that his question related rather to the continuance of the offices than to the amount of salaries. Was it necessary to continue them, having regard to the requirements of the Circuit, or was it intended to consolidate them and put the work into the hands of one person?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, the subject had been carefully inquired into by a Committee appointed by the late Lord Chancellor, presided over by the Master of the Rolls, and of which Lord Justice Lush, Mr. Pemberton, himself, and other gentlemen were members. His own idea had been that the work might be done at considerably less expense than it was at the time, and many other members of the Committee took the same view. But the result of the investigation had been to satisfy the Committee that it was not possible to effect much saving, having regard to the number of Courts sitting at the same time, each of which required the attendance of an officer. He believed that the Report of the Committee had suggested all that could usefully be done; but the subject was one which he had no doubt would receive full consideration.

MR. GOURLEY

thought that the question ought to be considered as to whether the office of Sheriff should not be abolished. He should be glad to know the meaning of the charge for Extraordinary Expenditure in furtherance of Justice which appeared in the Vote?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the item referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) provided not only for lodging the Judges, but for fitting up the Court, summoning jurymen, and other matters. He believed that the suggestion, of the hon. Member would result in a considerably increased charge.

MR. WARTON

begged to remind the Solicitor General that his question with regard to the necessity of retaining a double set of officers to do the work of one had not been replied to,

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, he was not aware that it was intended to make a change of the kind indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport. When, however, the offices became vacant, he had no doubt that the question would be fully considered.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he did not regard the answer of the noble Lord as very satisfactory. He should not ask the Committee to divide against the Vote; but to his mind four clerks engaged upon one Circuit were rather too many, and it seemed strange that in some way or other the superfluous officers could not be dispensed with. The same remarks applied to the office of Judge's Registrar in Ireland. The Registrar ship was in the patronage of the Judge for the time being, who appointed some friend or relation of his own, and this person, it might be said, did literally nothing. The office was a perfect sinecure, inasmuch as the Judge himself took notes of the proceedings, and the Registrar, during the whole time the Court was engaged, did not require to put pen to paper. But why a Judge should require two gentlemen on Circuit to assist in doing nothing really passed his comprehension.

Vote agreed, to.

(20.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £97,115, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, of the Court of Appeal, and of the Supreme Court of Judicature (exclusive of the Central Office), as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he must confess that he always looked upon this Vote with a certain amount of partiality, because he had last year made a representation to the effect that a charge of £1,500, now struck out of the Estimates, could not be needed, inasmuch as the officer for whom it was asked did not exist. The Government admitted the non-existence of the officer in question, but it took 25 minutes to convince them that it was unnecessary to take the £1,500. He succeeded in getting the amount struck out, and he was afterwards told by an old Member of the House that he had never before known a case in which the Government had submitted to the reduction of a Vote. For that reason he had a partiality towards the Vote before the Committee. On the present occasion he had to bring forward an important representation made by an officer specially appointed by the House to report upon these Estimates, with regard to a particular officer of the Court of Chancery. The Comptroller and Auditor General, in his Report upon the Accounts presented by the Paymaster General of the Court of Chancery, recently placed in the hands of hon. Members, drew attention to certain points of great consequence, and which, although they would take a few minutes to go through, he believed the Committee would agree ought not to be passed over without comment. He said in a letter addressed to the office of the Court of Chancery— (7.) My attention has been called to a practice which appears to me to be unsatisfactory and to involve some risk of misapplication of dividends. It not unfrequently happens that when an Order directs the transfer into Court of railway or other stock or shares, and when a certificate is given by a Secretary of a Company that the securities in question have been transferred to the account of the Paymaster General on certain days (which certificate is attached to the Paymaster's directions and sent to this Department as a voucher for the transaction), they nevertheless do not appear as brought to credit in the Paymaster's accounts until some months afterwards. In one case during the past year, five months elapsed between the date of the certificate and the date on which the security was brought to credit. I have thought it right to ask for some explanation of these delays, and also to inquire in the case specially adverted to, whether any dividend accrued in the interval, and whether, in that event, the amount should not have been paid into Court. The Chancery Paymaster has, however, stated in reply that the securities had been brought to account as soon as practicable after the receipt of the evidence of the completion of the transfers, and that he did not consider it any part of his duty to inquire into the matter of the dividends. The Committee would see from this that there were sums of money accruing as dividends on property, which the Chancery Paymaster chose to allow to go into some unknown regions, and which the owners had little chance of recovering. (8.) A question has arisen as to the obligation of the Paymaster under the General Order in Lunacy of the 7th November, 1853. The Order directs, in Section 16, that when money has been paid into Court and invested pursuant to the Master's certificates, the dividends in such investments shall, failing other direction, 'be laid out by the Accountant General (Paymaster) in like manner without any request for the purpose.' It is held by the Paymaster that if an order is made dealing with a portion of the securities, the obligation of investing dividends does not remain when the request from the Solicitor ceases. I think it my duty to point out that the probable result of this interpretation of the rules will be the accumulation of cash upon the accounts of lunatic suitors. As an instance in point, I may mention a case in which a balance of £896 17s. 7d. had accumulated on one account before the investment took place in August 1879. Hon. Members, he thought, would not allow their own private affairs to be conducted in this way. The Comptroller and Auditor General proceeded— (9.) It was discovered in the course of examination that a sum of £415 had been invested under the authority of an old order, while a later order had directed its distribution among five claimants. The mistake was admitted and the stock sold; but as the price of Consols had risen in the interval, there was a profit of £21 2s. 1d. on the transaction; and the question was raised by this Department in what manner this profit should be disposed of. The Lords of the Treasury decided that the sum of £21 2s. 1d. should be transferred to the Exchequer. He should like the noble Lord to give some explanation of the grounds on which the interest on funds lying in the Court of Chancery in this way were transferred to the Public Exchequer. Then there was another case detailed in the Report, which continued as follows:— (10.) A Report of Master Barlow, confirmed by flat on the 21st August, 1876,acopy of which was sent to this Department, was found to contain a direction for the transfer into Court to the account of a person of unsound mind of £322 9s. 1d. New Three Per Cent Annuities, and also for the payment into Court by the Bank of England to the sum credit of any dividends which might accrue on such Annuities previously to the transfer thereof. The stock in question was not transferred into Court until the 16th November, 1876, and consequently a dividend accrued in the interval; but as no such dividend was paid into Court, a letter was addressed to the Bank of England, making inquiry upon the subject. The Comptroller and Auditor General concluded by saying— (12.) I regret to say that the representations which I have repeatedly addressed to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury upon the incompleteness of the audit and the inadequacy of my staff for the work which is now undertaken, and which is constantly falling still more into arrear, have not yet elicited any response; and I have accordingly addressed a further communication to their Lordships, a copy of which will be found in the Appendix. The Committee would see what good reason the Comptroller and Auditor General had for complaining of the treatment he received from the Commissioners of the Treasury when it was stated that this letter was dated 31st December, 1880, and that the letters he had addressed to the Treasury on the 12th January and 7th of December, 1879—more than a year before—were yet unanswered. The letter referred to contained the following passage:— I am to add that while it is far from the desire of the Comptroller and Auditor General unduly to press the matter upon the consideration of their Lordships, he would submit that without an adequate staff to overtake the requisite duties, he cannot be held responsible for the possible consequences which might result from the insufficient supervision of pecuniary transactions of such exceptional magnitude. These were the first points he had to submit to the consideration of the noble Lord, and the next charge which struck him in this Vote was, on page 83, under the head of Master of the Rolls Office, for Preacher at the Rolls Church £180, and Preacher at the Rolls Chapel £45. He was quite unable to understand the necessity for continuing two such items as these, and if any grounds for their continuance did exist, he had not been able to ascertain them. Therefore, he would be glad if the noble Lord would state what was the reason for the continuance of these charges upon the Estimates. There was also a subject upon which he should be glad to hear some explanation from the Attorney General. Some years ago, when that hon. and learned Gentleman was in Opposition, he attacked this Vote, and moved its reduction by the sum charged for the Official Referees. Last year, having taken Office, he spoke in favour of retaining this item, which, when in Opposition, he most strenuously opposed; and on that occasion, although he advanced some rather weak arguments, they were sufficient for the time being. He said that the Official Referees had had a great increase of work thrown upon them; that complaints were not so strong as they had been, and that the work had been much better done. But a short time ago, when he (Mr. O'Connor) was at the office of a gentleman in Gray's Inn, the question of the Referees became the subject of conversation; and it was stated that the position of the Referees was simply indefensible; that they had nothing like an adequate amount of work to do for the money paid to them; that the suitors did not get satisfaction; that they did not go before the Referees willingly, and that when they did the almost invariable result was that the Official Referees, after hearing both sides of the case, proposed a compromise. These were the three points he wished to submit to the Government, and upon which he should be glad to receive some satisfactory explanation.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he was perfectly sure the present Master of the Rolls did not require the services of a Preacher at the Rolls Chapel, and the charge under this head appeared altogether superfluous. He requested the Committee to compare the cost of the retinue of the Master of the Rolls with that of the Chancery Judges. The former had two Secretaries at £600 and £1,000 a-year respectively, a Gentleman of the Chamber at £400 a-year, and, besides other officials, a Train Bearer at £200, and a Clerk of the Chamber at £400 a-year; the whole charge being for the Master of the Rolls' establishment about £3,000 a-year, as against £3,700, the charge for the six Chancery Judges. He trusted the noble Lord would explain the necessity for retaining this excessive charge in the case of the Master of the Rolls.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the salary of the Secretary to the Master of the Rolls was formerly £1,200; but it had since been reduced, and at the next vacancy it would be fixed at £500. The Secretary of Causes attended in Court every morning and took the directions of the Master of the Rolls, his chief work being to read petitions, which numbered about 4,000 in the course of the year. He believed that one Departmental Commission had recommended the abolition of this office; but another Commission had subsequently recommended its continuance for some time longer. When, however, a vacancy occurred the subject would, no doubt, receive further consideration. With respect to the Preacher at the Rolls Chapel, this gentleman performed Divine Service every Sunday, and his salary was one over which the Treasury had no control, inasmuch as it was fixed by Act of Parliament—Sec. 4, 3 Vict. c. 46. Although the present Master of the Rolls did not attend the chapel, he presumed that Divine Service was necessary there for the benefit of others. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had called attention to a point in connection with the office of Paymaster General of the Court of Chancery, giving details upon which he would not enter. The hon. Member asked why the Treasury had paid into the Exchequer the profit on a certain transfer of stock. He presumed that the answer was that, inasmuch as it would not have been thought right to charge the suit with interest had a loss resulted from a fall in the funds, there was no reason why he should be credited with profit which resulted from a mistake of an unfortunate character. With regard to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the question was not at all free from difficulty; but he was happy to say that a Committee would shortly be appointed to consider the duties of that officer and the number of clerks required.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, that, having regard to the needs of the district in which the Rolls Chapel was situated, he was very glad to see that there was a preacher there.

MR. GREGORY

said, he had not been originally favourable to the institution of the office of Official Referees and the appointments made. But he had since found that the duties of the office, which were more onerous than he at first supposed, were, on the whole, satisfactorily performed. There was this great advantage in connection with the office—that the Official Referees could go down to any place and investigate cases on the spot. For instance, they could inspect works which were the subject of a contract, see how things were going on, and form their own conclusions. With regard to the office of Paymaster of the Court of Chancery, he would wish to remind the Committee of the immense amount of work that was in hand; and looking at the complicated nature of the accounts, the orders that had to be worked out, and other things, it was a matter of surprise to him that more mistakes did not occur in that office. Those and several other matters required some attention.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

thought the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was entitled to some sym- pathy, for he himself, when the Referees were appointed, took exception to the appointment, especially of one of them, for he thought a Referee should not be appointed who had not shown his fitness for the office. But after the lapse of five years, he had now nothing unfavourable to say as to that gentleman. He had nothing but favourable criticism to offer, for that gentleman had performed his duties with satisfaction, and with benefit to, the public service. Subsequently to that, there was an extension of the duties thrown upon the Referees. For a time there was some doubt as to the desirability of submitting cases to the judgment of the Referees; but now, instead of few cases being submitted to them, there were very many, and their time was fully occupied.

MR. HOPWOOD

thought it would be in the memory of some hon. Members that when the Official Referees were appointed, and for some time afterwards, there was an item for travelling expenses, and that in favour of the appointments it was argued that the Referees would be ambulatory, and so could decide questions at a much less cost to the parties. It was intended that the expenses should be paid from the public funds and not by the individuals; but he did not see this item in the Estimates, and he knew that the law was being disregarded in that respect. It seemed as if the Treasury were determined to override the Act of Parliament; and at present, when the Referees had to go from London, they had to apply to the parties for security for their travelling expenses.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

observed that the suitor, of course, must in one sense bear the expenses of a travelling Referee if he took the Referee a long distance from London; but, of course, the Treasury must allow some of the expenses.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, that the complaint of the Referees was that they were obliged to enter into cash transactions with the parties, instead of receiving an advance from the Treasury.

MR. GREGORY

said, he thought the Referees were placed in a humiliating position.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he wished to draw attention to the case of the Registrars in the Courts of Chancery. He should be obliged to divide the Committee upon this item unless he re- ceived a satisfactory explanation. The Registrars were simply officers of the Courts to carry out the decrees of the Judges, and did not partake in a judicial character at all. The Chief Clerks of the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellors discharged most important judicial duties, by which large sums of money were sometimes disposed of. A County Court Judge's maximum salary was £1,500, and that of the Chief Clerks of the Master of the Rolls and the Vice Chancellors was also £1,500; but the first of these gentlemen, who discharged the duties of Registrars, received £2,000; three received £1,800; four received £1,500; and four others received £1,250. Then there were two clerks at £800, four at £600, five at £400, four at £300, together with 12 assistant clerks, and two clerks of entry, making altogether 42 clerks to carry out the decisions of six Courts—four Vice Chancellors' Courts, the Rolls Court, and the Court of Appeal. It might surely be supposed that that staff was sufficient to deal with the most extensive operations of the Court; but, beyond these, there was a charge of £3,100 for copying, the 42 clerks being unable to do any copying at all. There was no Department which cost so much as this in proportion to the work done; and unless the Government could give some explanation of this, he should be obliged to take the sense of the Committee upon it.

MR. GREGORY

said, that, having had long experience of the work of the Courts of Chancery, he could not agree with the hon. Member. The efficiency of those Courts largely depended on the Registrars, and he thought the hon. Member had altogether under-estimated their duties. They had to sit in Court, take notes of each judgment and of the order to be drawn up in consequence of the judgment, and to work out the details of the judgment, which was necessarily pronounced in short and concise terms. Then they had to advise the Judges on all points of practice, and were always ready with references upon any point that might arise. On leaving the Courts they had to draw up the decrees, which sometimes extended to 200 or 300 folios, and involved the most minute directions as to taking accounts, ascertaining the liabilities and charges on estates, administration of the estates, and realization of the assets in order to meet the charges upon them. In addition to those duties they had to see that the orders were in accordance with the pleadings; and all these were a heavy responsibility, requiring great vigilance and knowledge of the practice of the Court. These gentlemen had been trained to this work, and they must be paid for such duties; and unless the Courts were furnished with such officers the administration of the Court would be very different from what it now was.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, these appointments were the richest mine the Courts of Chancery possessed, and it was always considered desirable to put young men into them early, because they were sure to get to the top of the tree if they lived long enough. But the work of these officials could not be compared with that of the County Court Judges or the Chief Clerks in Chancery, and it could not be argued that they were paying ability according to its merits. The reckless profusion of emoluments went down from them to the care-taker and cleaner, who received £250 a-year, and there was also an item of £3 for washing towels. This was a matter that ought to be seriously considered.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

explained that although the sum paid was large, it had been settled by statute, and assured the Committee that the duties of the Registrars were most onerous and responsible duties. It was necessary to have men in that position in whom there was perfect confidence. If the same duties were performed by private agency the cost would probably be greater; and he did not think any further legislation on this matter was necessary.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he must protest against the notion that the Registrars discharged duties of equal importance to those of the Chief Clerks. As a matter of fact, important decrees in the Court of Chancery were settled by the counsel, and the duty of the Registrar was mainly mechanical. He did not deny that the Registrars were men of great ability, and that men of great ability ought to be employed for this work; but if £1,500 was a sufficient salary for a County Court Judge or a Chief Clerk, it was enough for a Registrar; and as the Government had defended this Vote he should take the opinion of the Committee upon it. He would, however, not do so as to the salaries of the Registrars, as they were fixed by statute; but the country ought not to pay £3,100 for copying in the Registrars' offices, and he should move to reduce the Vote by £2,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £695,115, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, of the Court of Appeal, and of the Supreme Court of Judicature (exclusive of the Central Office), as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Henry Fowler.)

MR. GREGORY

said, he considered the duties of the Registrars as responsible as those of the Chief Clerks in their way; but he thought the Chief Clerks were underpaid.

MR. HEALY

wished to take the opinion of the Committee with regard to the Chaplain of the Rolls Court. He thought it was time to teach the Master of the Rolls that there was no royal road to Paradise, and if he wanted prayers said for him he should pay for them himself. He was opposed to Votes for getting men to Heaven, and should move to reduce the Vote by £250, the salary of the Preacher in the Rolls Chapel.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would not insist on going to a division. There was some profit on the scrivener's work.

Question put.

The Committee divided;—Ayes 32; Noes 76: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 356.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. HEALY

said, he would move to reduce the Vote by £225, the salary and expenses of the Chaplain attached to the Rolls Chapel. He had already explained the reasons which induced him to take this step; and if the salaries and expenses of this gentleman were secured to him by an Act of Parliament the sooner it was repealed the better. They could hardly disturb the present chaplain; therefore, if the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) would give an undertaking to bring in a Bill, as soon as the present chaplain's administrations ceased, to abolish the office, he would not press his Motion to a division. As long as these absurd charges for preaching and praying were put in the Votes he should protest against them.

Motion made, and Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £96,890, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, of the Court of Appeal, and of the Supreme Court of Judicature (exclusive of the Central Office), as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Healy.)

The Committee divided—Ayes 23; Noes 90: Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 357.)

MR. RYLANDS

asked the Secretary to the Treasury for some information as to the charge made for a stockbroker. Did the gentleman who acted in this capacity get any commission?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the stockbroker received the sum mentioned in the Estimates instead of fees. The fees received in his Department amounted to £12,000 odd a-year.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

was at a loss to know how any charge at all was made for a stockbroker. The duty of this gentleman, as he understood it, was to dispose of stock belonging to suitors in Chancery. If that was so, surely the expense of employing the stockbroker should be paid out of the costs of the cases.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the suitors were charged fees which were paid into the Exchequer, and the stockbroker who did the work received a salary.

MR. HEALY

wished to have some explanation of the item of £330 for the bag-bearer. It seemed to him that the sum was more than enough for a stout colporteur, to say nothing of a mere bag-bearer. There was a sum of £1,820 for bag - bearers, some being called "petty bag-bearers." What were these offices?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, they were very ancient offices. The old names that they still retained did not at all describe the duties of those who held the appointments. The bag-bearers were really clerks.

Original Question, put, and agreed to.

(21.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £68,427, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature; the Salaries and Expenses of the Judges' Clerks and other Officers of the District Registrars of the High Court; the remuneration of the Judges' Marshals; and certain Circuit Expenses.

MR. GREGORY

said, he was not going to oppose the Vote; but there was a matter in connection with it on which he wished to make an observation—namely, the matter of expenses of Judges on Circuit. A certain allowance, he believed, was made to Judges of Appeal for expenses; but there was no allowance to the ordinary Judges on account of Circuit expenses. It seemed to him to be a hard and shabby thing to require the Judges on all occasions to pay their own expenses out of the salaries they received. The Judges' salaries were assessed 50 years ago, when money bore a very different value to that which attached to it now, and expenses were much less than at present. The system adopted long ago of making a reduction of £500 per annum in the Judges' salaries on account of Circuit expenses continued up to the present day. The result was that the Judges' salaries, instead of being £5,000 a-year, only amounted to £4,500. They could not expect to get good men to fulfil the functions of Judges in the Courts of First Instance now-a-days unless they paid them adequate salaries. The present system was unworthy of the country; and, in many instances, the best men for the Bench were prevented from accepting a seat upon it in consequence. He did not advocate extravagance in the administration of justice. He had never advocated it; he had always endeavoured to check it; but, in the interests of justice generally, and in the interests of the suitors, it was necessary that there should be strong Judges on the Bench. It could not be expected, however, that they would be obtained as long as they were subjected to this petty deduction. He sincerely hoped that this matter would receive some attention.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, there was an item for Registry of Deeds and Bills for Middlesex, for two Registrars, and Lord Truro, and the Queen' Remembrancer. An hon. and learned Member opposite some time ago had moved for a Return on this subject; and he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had almost expected the hon. and learned Gentleman to say something about it this evening. The Return, which was granted, was a very interesting one. It was for the year 1878–9, and it showed the fees received by the Registrars, the expenses of the office, and the net amount paid to the account of the Queen's Remembrancer. Moreover, it gave the names of the Registrars and the number of days each of them attended at the Registry. It was shown that the fees amounted to some £14,000, £15,000, or £16,000 a-year, and the expenses amounted to £4,000, or £5,000, or £6,000 a-year. There was a balance from year to year of about £10,000. Well, half of this—or £5,000—was paid, as the share of the Queen's Remembrancer, into the public account at Messrs. Hoare's and Co's. Bank; but all the rest went to Lord Truro—namely, £5,000 a-year. When they turned to that part of the Return which showed what it was that Lord Truro did for his £5,000 a-year—when they came to inquire the number of days on which the Registrars attended the Registry—they found that that portion of the inquiry of the hon. and learned Member was dishonoured. There was no answer given to the inquiry. The only thing they gathered was that Lord Truro superintended the office and staff, and attended "whenever his Lordship's services were required." No doubt, his Lordship would come down to the office to sign the Return, and that would be one of the few things he would have to do in the year. The Queen's Remembrancer never attended at all; but then he did not receive any emolument. Lord Truro received his £5,000 a-year for doing nothing. It certainly appeared to him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that instead of only half the whole of the £ 10,000 ought to be paid into Messrs. Hoare's and Co's. bank to the public account, or, at any rate, such portion of it as would leave Lord. Truro a fair amount for the trouble and inconvenience he was put to in having occasionally to attend the Registry to sign such a Return as that he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had referred to. He would move that the Vote be reduced by £4,500, which would leave Lord Truro £500 a-year for his work. That would be handsome remuneration.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £63,927 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature; the Salaries and Expenses of the Judges' Clerks and other Officers of the District Registrars of the High Court; the remuneration of the Judges' Marshals; and certain Circuit Expenses."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

MR. COURTNEY

said, the hon. Member was under a strong misapprehension on this matter. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) proposed to reduce the Vote by a sum which was not an expenditure, but a receipt. It was much to be regretted that the hon. Member was not present when the matter came under discussion early in the Session. The hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood)had brought in a Bill to re-constitute the Office, and that was opposed by the Government for the reason that it was not intended to fill up the appointments again as vacancies occurred. There would be no successor to Lord Truro.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

thought it rather a pity that the time of the Committee should be wasted by the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney), who evidently failed to apprehend what he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) meant. He was as well aware as the hon. Member that the £10,000 was a receipt; but what he complained of was that half of it should be given to Lord Truro for nothing. The Queen's Remembrancer did nothing, and received nothing for it; but Lord Truro did nothing, or next to nothing, and was paid £5,000 a-year for it. It was incumbent on the Committee to refuse to allow Lord Truro to be paid this £5,000 a-year, and it was perfectly competent for them to insist upon its being paid into the Public Exchequer. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members might say "No!" but he, evidently, had a clearer idea of the power of Parliament than they had. The House of Commons would have no difficulty in withholding this money from Lord Truro. He contended that if he moved to reduce the Vote by £4,500, and if Lord Truro was obliged to pay into the Exchequer the amount of the extra receipts, there would be the same sum available.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, he thought that the answer of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) did not meet the question raised by the hon. Member for Queen's County, which was perfectly clear.

MR. HOPWOOD

pointed out that Lord Truro's interest was guarded by Act of Parliament, and that the Treasury were, in consequence, powerless in the matter. Certain fees were leviable from the owners of property, upon whom the onus of registering a memorial was imposed. There had been originally three Registrars; but endeavours had been made to effect economy in this respect, and when the offices became vacant one had been discontinued, and one of the Masters of the Courts had been appointed to another as trustee to receive the fees on behalf of the Treasury.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, his contention was that Lord Truro had not a right to the £5,000 he was receiving, but only to the share of the fees which he was entitled to when there were four Registrars.

MR. HEALY

said, he protested against the charge for Judges' Train Bearers on the ground of economy.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(22.) £57,124, to complete the sum for Probate, &c. Registries of the High Court of Justice.

(23.) £6,797, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Registry of the High Court of Justice.

(24.) £8,118, to complete the sum for the Wreck Commission.

MR. HEALY

said, he thought that the number of folios paid for to the shorthand writers in this Department ought to be stated.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, it was impossible to ascertain the amount of work until the end of the year.

Vote agreed to.

(25.) £19,424, to complete the sum for the London Bankruptcy Court.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

pointed out that whereas the amount of arrears in this Court were steadily increasing, there had been a decrease in the last three years of the number of hours of sitting by the Chief Judge and the Registrars. As this was hardly the way to get rid of arrears of work, he should be glad to receive an explanation on the subject before the money was voted.

MR. HINDE PALMER

said, that as he had moved for the Return on which the hon. Member rested his statement, he would point out that the total represented the number of days on which the Registrar sat as representing the Chief Judge. It would be misleading to say that it represented the total number of days on which the Court was engaged.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he did not wish to draw any conclusion from the Return that was not warranted; but he dwelt most strongly on the fact that there had been a steady diminution in the number of days on which the Registrars sat, concurrently with an increase of arrears of work.

Vote agreed to.

(26.) £382,936, to complete the sum for the County Courts.

(27.) £2,442, to complete the sum for the Land Registry.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he was glad to see his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General in his place, because he had something to say with regard to this Vote. The Land Registry, he believed, was established in 1864, and was brought into existence for the purpose of carrying out the views of Lord Cairns and Lord Westbury with regard to the registration of titles. Since then a Committee had sat to inquire into the working of the office. Year by year promises had been made that something should be done to make the Court of use; and he remembered that when the present occupants of the Treasury Bench were in Opposition they made a strong onslaught upon this Vote. If he was not mistaken, the Home Secretary was a very strenuous opponent of the Vote, as he stated distinctly that nothing was done either by the Registrar or the Assistant Registrar. Both of these gentlemen were able and excellent men, and promises had been made that some work should be found for them to do; and he would, therefore, ask whether any arrangement had been made in that direction, and what steps had been taken, if any, to make the Land Registry an efficient Court for the transaction of business?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he agreed with the hon. and gallant Baronet in the observations which he had made. There was no doubt that one of two things ought to be done—either the office should be abolished or rendered effective. He admitted that the state of the office was not satisfactory, while it constituted a charge upon the Revenue which the amount of good done by it did not justify. But the Committee should bear in mind that upon the question of whether it was expedient to abolish this office hon. Members were not agreed. On the contrary, there were some who thought that an extension of the system was desirable. Under the circumstances, he did not think that the Government could deal with the matter until their minds had been made up as to whether the office should be abolished or continued, because hardly anything could be worse than to find, after abolishing it, that a new office must be created, and that the services of those persons who were the most effective instruments in administering it were no longer available. The present Registrar was a gentleman of great professional eminence, and who had resigned a lucrative practice in the Courts to take this office at a considerably less income than he formerly received. And he regretted nothing more than that he should be in the unsatisfactory position of occupying the post without being able to do more service to the public. It had been announced, last year, that the Government intended to deal with this matter without delay; but he thought the Committee would see that there had been exceptional circumstances, during the present Session, which prevented them carrying out their good intentions. The Government, however, were still anxious to see the matter placed upon a satisfactory footing. It would not be lost sight of, and he could assure the Committee that it would be dealt with at the earliest possible moment.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he supposed the Committee would be obliged to accept the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but it was a twice-told tale. He had heard it when he sat opposite, and he had heard it again since he sat on that side of the House. Whenever the Vote was criticized, some occupant of the Treasury Bench gave promises, explanations, and justifications; but, notwithstanding these, the money continued to be charged on the public purse. For nearly 20 years the country had been paying for the office, and had expended upon it in that time something like £100,000, getting, in return, scarcely any advantage. He observed that the amount of fees paid during the year ending on the 31st December, 1880, was £818 15s.; and it was, therefore, clear that the officers, who received large salaries, had little or nothing to do. But he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Chief Clerk of the office, who received £400 a-year for doing nothing, was allowed by the Attorney General to take another appointment in the Land Securities Company (Limited), from which Society he received £100 per annum. It seemed to him that this was not the kind of arrangement by which the office of the Land Registry could be made serviceable, and that it ought no longer to be allowed. For his own part, he should be content to see the whole thing swept away, in order that a start might be made de novo; and in view of the large amount that would have been saved in salaries it was to be regretted that this had not been done before. He was glad to receive the assurance of the Solicitor General that no new appointments were made, and trusted that next year the whole case would be dealt with in a more satisfactory manner than it had been hitherto.

Vote agreed to.

(28.) £18,690, to complete the sum for Revising Barristers, England.

(29.) £8,021, Police Courts, London and Sheerness.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he wished to know whether the Government had not had many urgent representations made to them as to the inconvenience experienced by the public, owing to the fact that the Police Court at Hammersmith closed at 2 o'clock in the afternoon?

MR. COURTNEY

was understood to say that there were certain suburban courts, where the business was light, which only sat during what were called half-court days, and that Hammersmith was one of them.

Vote agreed to.

(30.) £250,402, to complete the sum for Metropolitan Police.

(31.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £911,298, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for certain Expenses connected with the Police in Counties and Boroughs in England and Wales, and with the Police in Scotland.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he had seen, from the Local Taxation Returns which had recently been issued to Members, that the town of Southampton had an allowance from Her Majesty's Treasury of £4,841 for police alone. But during the same period the cost of the police in Southampton was only £4,425; so that the allowance obtained from the Treasury towards the pay and clothing of the police of Southampton was actually more than the total cost of the police of the town. It struck him that there was something anomalous about this; but, possibly, the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be able to explain it.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the statement made by the hon. Gentleman had given him considerable surprise; but he would look into the matter. The allowance made from the Treasury for the county and borough police was founded upon the principle of giving one-half of the pay and allowances, not including other portions of the expenditure for the police. He could not understand the matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman at present, but he would look into it.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he did not at all wonder at the noble Lord's being surprised, and the document he referred to was the Local Taxation Returns for the year 1878–9, pages 58 and 59, where the facts would be found fully set forth.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

could only assure the hon. Gentleman that if there had been any over-payment last year it should be rectified next Session.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, there was another point which he should like to mention, and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had made peculiarly his own—he referred to the superannuation allowances for police. He recollected that the right hon. and learned Gentleman attended a meeting of the police a short time ago, and addressed them; and he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave them to understand in the course of that address that some arrangements had been made which would prove satisfactory with regard to superannuations. Whether those arrangements were to be confined to the Metropolitan Police, or whether they were to be extended to the police throughout the country, he was not very certain; but, unquestionably, the matter was one which excited a very great amount of interest in the Police Force, and a very large amount of sympathy throughout the great body of the people. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would now say something on this point. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had also noticed that this Vote was for the police of the counties and boroughs, not only of England, but of Scotland; and, that being so, this, perhaps, was the proper occasion for bringing under the notice of the House the very serious representations which were made in the 23rd Report of the Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland, with regard to the utter inefficiency of a large portion of the Police Force in that country. In the very first page the right hon. and learned Gentleman would find observations condemning the inefficiency of the police in the burghs of Wick and Banff, and other places. Then, with regard to another question of importance, the pay of the Superintendents of police in Scotland, the Inspector of Constabulary pointed out that while most of the counties and burghs, with some exceptions, paid the men liberally, the salary of the head officer was smaller than it ought to be, considering the onerous duties of his position; and in some places—more often in counties than in burghs—many additional duties had been placed upon the shoulders of the head of the police without any extra remuneration whatever. For instance, the Chief Constable in many counties had been made to undertake the duties of Procurator Fiscal to the Justices, and to perform those duties without salary, the county thus saving considerable ex- pense; and in order to get men willing to perform double duty, the Government grant practically paid half the difference. The local people thus managed to get their local work done at the expense of the Police Vote. There was still another question which was worthy of the attention of the Government, and that was the custom which prevailed in many of the counties, and in some of the burghs of Scotland—a custom which, as the Inspector said, was of a very questionable character—of liberating persons taken up for being drunk and incapable, or drunk and disorderly, when sober. Such persons in the districts he referred to were never taken before a magistrate, but were liberated without bail on the sole responsibility of the constable, and were not called upon to appear anywhere to answer the charge. The Inspector added in his Report that the question whether this practice was legal or not could only be answered by legal authority, though many looked upon it as illegal, and would allow no liberation except on bail, or by going before a magistrate. It would surely be better to legalize some plan whereby the obligation to appear before a magistrate might be suspended, with some provision to enable a prisoner to bring his case before a magistrate should he think himself aggrieved. This was a matter that well deserved the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The last point to which he desired to refer was that the Police Force in Scotland had to go to great trouble and expense in circulating information which it was necessary to have circulated, but which could not be circulated as in this country, for the simple reason that in Scotland there was no Police Gazette. The advantage of the circulation of this information was to the public very great indeed, and it was unfair that the cost of it should fall upon the police.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Some of the points which the hon. Gentleman has referred to ought to fall to my share to reply to. In regard to the question of the superannuation of police, I am entirely conscious of its great and urgent importance; and the statement which I made some weeks ago in addressing the Metropolitan Police would not have been made unless the Government at that time had actually had a Bill prepared upon the subject, which Bill would have been presented to Parliament if the time and season of the Session had permitted. This, I hope, will satisfy the hon. Member that the subject is one which we have not neglected. I do not think it would be advisable now to enter into all the details of that measure, for it is clear that we cannot deal with it this Session; but we shall occupy a part of the Recess in endeavouring to collect the opinion of those persons who are best able to assist us by their advice as to the provisions of the Bill. I will only, therefore, state that the measure embraces, not only the Metropolitan Police, but all the police throughout the country; and I may say that it is generally founded upon the lines of the Select Committee which sat for the purpose of dealing with this subject. Another matter which the hon. Member has referred to has been that in some cases the inefficiency of the local police has been complained of. Now, I wish to state to the Committee my view of the relations in which the Central Government and the Home Office stand to this question. As the hon. Member is aware, the general government of the local police belongs to the local authorities, and I think it is very desirable that that principle should be strictly maintained, and that we should not attempt by centralization to take away the power of the local authorities over their own police. The borough police is even more completely under the authority of their own watch committee than is the county police. The Home Office has more power to interfere with the pay and regulation of the county police than it has under the Municipal Corporations Act to interfere with the borough police, which is really and entirely under the control of the watch committee; and I have found this difficulty arises—that constant complaint is made of any interference on the part of the Government with their police. But, as the Government contribute one-half of the expense, they must have some power of seeing that they get an equivalent for the money spent. But, subject to this principle, I am extremely averse to taking out of the hands of the local authorities their right to deal with their own police. I will not mention the name, but there is one of the largest counties in England concerning which the Inspector made a strong Report as to the inefficiency of the police, and their ob- jection to any alteration. The authorities came before me, and I said—"Well, gentlemen, if you think your police are fit to protect the lives and property of the people in your own county, it is your affair, and I leave you to settle it as you like; but I call your attention to the fact that the Inspector reports your police as inefficient." I think they were satisfied with that answer, and a few weeks afterwards I received a Report that they had increased the strength of their force. I think it much better to deal with these cases in this way than to endeavour to bring them all under a central authority; and I think that if we are to expect local self-government we must be careful, and not assume too much control over what particular counties may consider necessary in regard to pay, &c. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the police in Scotland. Now, I must say that one of the pleasures which I have always found in Scotland is the gratifying absence of police. You never see one in Scotland. At one of the islands of the Outer Hebrides where I have visited—an island of considerable size—I found that the total police force on the island consists of one Inspector and two policemen. The habits there are regular, and everybody gets on extremely well. I do not think there is a doctor in the whole of the island; I believe disease is unknown, and crime is seldom heard of. This shows, then, that we cannot apply a strict rule as a general principle. We cannot do better than trust these local authorities, leaving the communities to look after their own interests, and to maintain what police they require. The other point which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, as to the release of persons charged with drunkenness without bringing any charge against them, or taking them before a magistrate, is a serious one, which deserves consideration, and I can only say that it shall be carefully considered.

MR. MAGNIAC

said, he was glad the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made this statement, and hoped that before long some legislative measure would be introduced, for among the many questions of local interest which were pressing for consideration this was one of the most important. Another point worthy of consideration, as bearing on the finances of the country, was the unnecessary number and duplication of police staffs in the boroughs and counties of the country, and that might be remedied with very considerable advantage. In many small boroughs there were practically two staffs kept up to a point entirely out of proportion to the numbers of the community. It would be of great advantage for the repression of crime and the maintenance of order if those small boroughs could be amalgamated with the counties for police purposes. It would lead to a great saving of expense, and he hoped the point would be considered.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, he wished to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that he (Colonel Alexander) had had the first Notice on the Paper to-day for his Resolution in reference to police superannuation, and this was the fourth time that he had procured a favourable position for it upon the Paper this Session. However, in consequence of the great pressure under which the Government had been placed in regard to the taking of Supply, and his unwillingness to interfere with the Government in that work at this late period of the Session, and also on account of the absence, through illness, of his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who presided over the Select Committee on Police Superannuation, and who was anxious to take part in any discussion that might be raised upon the subject, he (Colonel Alexander) had postponed his Resolution sine die. He had felt less reluctant to do so, because he had been extremely glad to read the remarks which the Home Secretary had made on a recent occasion in presenting prizes to the members of the Metropolitan Police Force; and now to-night they had obtained from the right hon. and learned Gentleman an undertaking that he would deal not only with the Metropolitan Force, but with all the rest of the police throughout the country. He was not certain whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant to include Scotland in his proposed measure; but he might point out that the need there was even greater than it was in England, for in Scotland they had no system of superannuation whatever. As matters stood now, a policeman in Scotland, on attaining the age of 60 years, and then not before being certified as incapable for the discharge of duty, might receive such a sum in gross as, in the circumstances, might to the Commissioners of Supply seem proper. The Select Committee which, in the year 1868, sat in the House of Lords, and was presided over by the Earl of Minto, examined several English witnesses upon the English system, and they reported that it was most desirable to introduce a system of superannuation into Scotland; but that the inquiries they had made of the English witnesses had brought out the fact that the English system was so imperfect that it would be well not to adopt any system at all until a more perfect one had been established in England. It was also shown that in consequence of the total absence of superannuation in Scotland a great number of the police were in the habit of crossing the Border and enlisting in the forces of Cumberland and Westmoreland. The Chief Constable of Westmoreland, who gave evidence before the Select Committee presided over by his hon. Friend the Member for West Essex, stated that he asked the men who came from Dumfriesshire, Wigtonshire, and Ayrshire what was their reason for leaving Scotland in order to join the Westmoreland force, and the answer almost invariably given was because there was no system of superannuation in Scotland. He (Colonel Alexander), therefore, hoped that in the measure which the Home Secretary promised to introduce Scotland would be included.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the promised measure would extend to Scotland as well as to England and Wales; and he hoped it would be found to be drawn upon lines which would leave it free from the disfavour which was shown towards the present system of police superannuation.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

wished to refer to a matter in which he took a deep interest some time ago, and which had reference to the conduct of the Glasgow police in regard to the disturbances that took place in that city. He was himself in Glasgow some time after the disturbances took place, and he saw the wives and relatives of some of the persons who were placed in prison. He took the opportunity of investigating the case as far as he could; and no doubt the Lord Advocate, whom he saw upon the Treasury Bench, was familiar with all the facts of the case. Perhaps he ought to preface his remarks by saying that his friend Mr. Fergusson, of Glasgow, acting in accordance with the precedent set by his fellow-members of the Land League, had made up his mind not to have a procession this year, in order that there should be no reason to keep up bitter memories. There would, he believed, be an open air demonstration, but not a procession of the usual nature; for there was no desire whatever to give any excuse for fresh disturbances. However, what he wanted to call attention to was the fact that there was a strong feeling at the time that these processions had not been treated fairly by the police. The procession which led to the disturbance was attacked by a number of Orangemen, for he was sorry to say that Irishmen easily transferred to a neutral country some of the animosities and bitternesses of their own land; and the police in this instance, instead of understanding the nature of the procession, and that the people who took part in it were simply engaged in the exercise of their Constitutional rights, attacked the processionists, and a disturbance took place. But, whatever the cause of the disturbance, some of the processionists were taken before the magistrates, and, in some cases, were sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) saw the wife of one of these unfortunate men, and he believed she was in rather a bad way, and would have suffered severely, had it not been for the assistance that was rendered to her. He believed that the impression produced on the minds of the Irishmen was that the fact of their nationality and the fact of their creed exercised some influence against them. He made no charge against anyone; but they certainly did believe that these considerations exercised some influence over the treatment which these men received. The Lord Advocate and the Home Secretary knew as well as he did that between the religious sentiments of the Irish people and the general religious sentiment of the Scotch people there was a strong feeling of antagonism; and it would be most lamentable if the Bench gave any instructions whatever which would tend to spread a feeling of bigotry and intolerance between different classes of the community. He trusted that in future no suspicion of anything of the sort would be allowed to arise.

MR. BUXTON

pointed out that there was an increase this year in the expenditure for the police; and he wished to know how that increase compared with the increases which exhibited a gradual growth in previous years?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

, in reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) concerning the Glasgow disturbances, said, that in November last he took a great deal of pains to investigate the facts of the case, and had Reports from the magistrates, from the Procurator Fiscal, and from all the persons who were thought likely to be able to throw any light upon the matter. No doubt, it was very unfortunate when two rival creeds, differing in political as well as in religious opinion, came into conflict in this way, and in this case there was a great deal of disorder. The ringleaders and some others were taken up for assaulting the police, and he knew the charge had been made that the magistrates had acted with partiality, and that they were more severe upon the Catholics than they were upon the Protestants. He could only say that he would do all that lay in his power to prevent the exhibition of any partiality on the part of the police, or of anyone else; and he was bound to say that, after a careful investigation of the whole of the facts, he could not find any evidence of partiality established in the present case. In reply to the question put by another hon. Member, as to the increase in the expenditure for police, he might point out that that increase was very nearly in the proportion of 2 per cent, and rested upon the increase in the numbers of police due to the natural growth of population.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not excoeding £245,844, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Superintendence of Convict Establishments, and for the Maintenance of Convicts in Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he did not intend to raise any question upon any of the items of this Vote; but he wished make an appeal to the Government. This Vote raised a question upon which the Irish Members felt very strongly, and that was the treatment of political prisoners, especially his friend, Mr. Michael Davitt. Upon this question he had the support, not only of his Irish Friends, but of one or two English Representatives; and it had been represented to him that the best course would be to appeal to the Home Secretary. As it was now midnight, he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consent to postpone this Vote, and that would involve no waste of time, because there were other Votes which might be easily disposed of.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

, in reply, said, that he was always ready to meet any proposals which facilitated the transaction of Business, and if the proposal of the hon. Member would have that effect, he should be very glad to fall in with it; but he did not exactly understand what it was the hon. Member proposed to postpone.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Vote 24.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

expressed his willingness to accede to the suggestion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

(32.) £293,759, to complete the sum for Prisons, England.

MR. RYLANDS

reminded the Committee that the Home Secretary's Predecessor had induced the House to support the Prisons Bill, and that, in consequence, the management of the prisons was transferred from the local authorities to the State, with the expectation that there would be a great improvement in the administration and great economy in the expenses of the prisons. He himself had grave doubts at the time as to the wisdom of the course, and did what he could to oppose it; but, in consequence of the representations made by the late Home Secretary, which were, no doubt, made in good faith, the House was induced to assent to the measure, and the prisons were handed over to the central authorities. Amongst other arguments raised by the late Home Secretary was the expectation that, under good management, prison labour would produce £60,000 a-year. But in the Estimate now before the Committee there was no Return for prison labour, and experience had proved that the late Home Secretary was entirely misled in his anticipations on this point. The Prisons Commissioners, in their Report, stated that the Estimates of the produce of prison labour for 1878–9 and 1879–80 were worthless; and it was, in consequence, thought better not to make any Estimate for 1880–1. He had never anticipated that, under the management of the central authority, any advantage would be gained with respect to prison labour, or that the prisons would be more profitably employed than when under local authority. The average cost, under the old system, of Crown prisoners was £27 per head; but the new Prisons Act having been in operation for two years that average had only been reduced to £23 per head. That average was considerably higher than the average cost of prisons in Lancashire during the last year of local management. The average there was £17 per head. He was satisfied that the experience of the Act had not shown any very great advantage, and he regretted more and more every day that the Act should have been passed interfering with the local administration of prisons; but as the prisons were now under the control of the State, every effort should be made to reduce the cost of the prisons, and he would call attention to these facts with that object.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he had also opposed the Prisons Bill; but as it was now an Act of Parliament, the Committee had now the present state of things to deal with only. He wished at once to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the courtesy and consideration he had shown to the Visiting Justices, and the wish he had expressed to support them in their anxious endeavours to discharge to the best of their ability the important duties that had been intrusted to them. He would not enter into the question of cost, because he thought it was hardly fair when things were in a transition state, to make any comparison; but he had always contended that it would be difficult for the Government to manage the prisons at a less cost than the local authorities. There were two points of a totally different character which he desired to mention, and which were of great importance to the ratepayers. The first was as to the conveyance of prisoners to prisons before trial. A test case, which was decided in favour of the county of Surrey, had been appealed against by the Government. He hoped the decision would not be set aside by the High Court, for this was one of those questions which would help local taxation, and in the interests of all the country it was important that the prisoners should be conveyed at the public expense. He hoped that, whatever might happen, the Home Secretary would take that into consideration, in order that the localities might be relieved of that item of expense. The next question was that of criminal lunatics. The Committee upon that subject had not yet reported; but he hoped that criminal lunatics would in future be confined in State prisons, and not sent to the county asylums. Such persons ought to be maintained by the State, and he hoped the Home Secretary would see his way to effect that.

MR. MAGNIAC

said; he must also complain of the hardship of throwing the maintenance of criminal lunatics upon the ratepayers. That practice should be done away with, whatever the Committee might report. With regard to the conveyance of prisoners, the spirit of the Bill which the Committee were considering certainly was that the cost should be borne by the country. These were not contentious matters, and he hoped the Bill would pass through the House as a matter of course; and, at all events, the counties had a right to expect the Government to pay some attention to these matters during the next Session. The expectations held out by the late Home Secretary respecting economy had not been realized; but how far the Act had failed in that respect it was impossible to say, because the gentlemen appointed to examine the accounts of the prisons had given up the task as hopeless owing to the way in which the accounts were kept. No attempt was made to value prison labour on any intelligent principle, and it was most important that this should not be allowed to continue any longer.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

With reference to the cost of the prisons, that is a very difficult and complicated matter. I desired to have as careful a comparison between the former and present state of things as could be got; but the old system was carried on upon such a totally different system of accounts from any we now have in operation that we cannot compare like with like, and I do not think that with the greatest care and trouble it is possible to state exactly what is the difference in cost between the one state of things and the other. I have a table here which gives a general result, and I have the total cost for all the local prisons under the old system. From 1871 to the time when the prisons were given up the cost ranged between £600,000 and £560,000. The Estimate this year gives the total cost as £463,000. Therefore, although I do not by any means pledge myself for the accuracy of these results, still I believe it is not unfair to state that the cost of the prisons as they are now worked is about £100,000 a-year less than it was before the change. Although I confess I am not very hopeful on the subject of prison labour, still there is a great deal to be done to improve the present system by doing away with the small prisons, and so reducing the total staff. Of course, we were obliged to keep the old staff, and in that way I do not think much economy has been gained; and if my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) succeeds in throwing upon the State the whole cost for the conveyance of prisoners, I am afraid we shall look more unfavourable in the future than we do now. The Committee will observe that the Estimates for the present year are, to a certain extent, less than those of last year. I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for the way in which he spoke of my efforts respecting the Visiting Justices. It would be too much not to expect at the first a little friction between the new Governors of the prisons and the old machinery; but I hope that has disappeared, and it is extremely agreeable to find that what efforts I may have made have been appreciated. The Reports from the Visiting Committees have been most favourable as to the working of the present system; and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that anything I can do to still further improve the system shall be done.

MR. CALLAN

complained that, whereas numerous details were given as to the salaries of Governors of some of the convict establishments, very slight details were given as to others where the total cost was greater.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

explained that an Appendix had been pub- listed giving all those details—No. 176, Parliamentary Papers.

MR. CALLAN

said, that when he brought forward the case of Catholic chaplains last year the Home Secretary said the information which he had laid before him was as careful as it was new, and promised that the Government would endeavour to deal with the question in a satisfactory manner. In the absence of any information in the present Estimates upon that subject, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman for some explanation, and whether, if he moved for a Return in continuation of the Return moved for last year, it would be given?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

With regard to this matter, the Government gave a distinct pledge, and, in fulfilment of that pledge, a Departmental Committee was appointed to consider the matter, and that Committee reported on the 24th January this year. They gave a detailed statement with regard to Catholic chaplains, and only lately I saw a gentleman who is interested in the subject, and he assured me that he had been in communication with the Catholic bodies, and found that they were perfectly satisfied with what had been done in the direction of placing the salaries of the Catholic chaplains on a proper footing.

Vote agreed, to.

(33.) £132,626, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, the manner in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had received all the suggestions made to him that evening encouraged him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to remind him that early this Session he addressed a question to him as to reformatories, and the treatment of the children in those institutions. He had obtained from the right hon. and learned Gentleman an intimation that it was the intention of the Government to consider whether it would not be possible to do away with compulsory preliminary imprisonment of the children who were sent to reformatory schools. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) might be mistaken as to the terms of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply, but it was something very like that. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman could see his way to abolishing the com- pulsory imprisonment of children to be sent to reformatory schools, it would be a great benefit to the community. Children were sent to these schools much too young; and in his last Report one of the Inspectors complained that he had found a hardened criminal of the age of 8, who had been sent to prison for no other crime than having been in the company of his two elder brothers when they committed an offence.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I need hardly tell the hon. Gentleman that this is a subject which occupies my mind a great deal. I suppose we have all of us—all the Members of the Government—in our Departments had a great many disappointments this Session, and have seen the failure of measures we were anxious to pass. No one has felt disappointment more keenly than I have in not having been able to introduce a measure dealing with juvenile offenders. At the same time, I am very glad to think that, public attention having been called to the difficulties of this case, the evil has been diminished to a very great extent. It has not altogether removed it. I have had inquiries made into particular cases that were complained of, and I must say the result has been to lead me to think that the imprisonment ought not to be compulsory or preliminary to sending a child to a reformatory. There is some difference of opinion upon this subject; but I think there is a preponderance of opinion amongst those who are most experienced on these subjects against the compulsory imprisonment. The much larger subject of the footing of industrial and reformatory schools should be, or is, a very serious financial question. The proposals made would entail a heavy charge upon the public funds. We ought not merely to attempt to put the law on a better footing, but to consider and revise the whole system of industrial and reformatory schools.

MR. MAGNIAC

said, he should like to remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the desirability of some charge being imposed on parents for the maintenance of their children in these reformatory and industrial schools. The present system was a premium upon vice—it was a premium to parents to induce their children to commit crimes in order that they might be sent to industrial institutions free of charge. He (Mr. Magniac) thought this question was well worthy of the consideration of the Government.

Vote agreed to.

(34.) £18,019, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he should like to know whether, when criminal lunatics came from India and other places, as he happened to know they did sometimes, they were charged for in this Vote, or whether India contributed towards the expenses of their maintenance? He thought he was right in saying that wherever the criminal lunatics that were sent to Broadmoor Asylum came from they were charged to the revenues of this country.

MR. MAGNIAC

said, there was a general feeling that Broadmoor Asylum was a most expensive establishment, and also that the discipline was singularly loose. A case occurred quite lately which was an indication of the unsatisfactory manner in which the establishment was carried on. Two persons whilst engaged in play nearly succeeded in making their escape. The whole of the establishment required reorganization. Its cost was enormous, the results were very unsatisfactory, and certainly the management of the establishment should be carefully considered by the Department over which the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) presided.

MR. RYLANDS

trusted that the Home Secretary would find time, in the midst of the various heavy duties that devolved upon him, to give some attention to this criminal lunatic asylum at Broadmoor. He (Mr. Rylands) had called attention to the enormous cost of the institution in 1877; and every year since, unless he was mistaken, he had had an opportunity of drawing the attention of the Government to the matter. He was glad to see that since 1876 there had been a little diminution in the charge per patient; but the average cost of the inmates in the present year was still excessive in comparison with various other institutions of the kind. The average cost during the present year, for each patient, would be £52. He found that in the Perth Asylum the average cost was £31, and at the Dundrum Asylum, £34. In the ordinary lunatic asylums throughout the country the average cost of the inmates per head was from £26 to £28. A convict prisoner cost on an average £33 per head; they, therefore, saw that the cost at Broadmoor was enormously above that at any other institution in the country. He trusted the Home Office would be able to bring their influence to bear upon the establishment to check the extravagant expenditure, and that in another year they would see a substantial reduction of this Vote. It ought to be reduced by several thousands of pounds.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he did not wish to stand up for the management of the Broadmoor Asylum; but he was sorry the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) was not in his place, because he had always offered a strong defence of this institution. The hon. Member had always pointed out that in this asylum there were many dangerous criminal lunatics who required a great deal more attention than other insane people. He had pointed out that the managers of the institution had endeavoured to cut down the expenses as much as possible. One day he was asking the hon. Member whether the expenditure at the asylum could not be cut down to a still greater extent; and the reply was that it would be impossible, and that he (Mr. Walter), as a Visitor, would be unable to continue in the office any longer if it were cut down, as he would not answer for the consequences. It certainly would appear that the expenses were excessively high, but the reason which was always given for it was that these criminals were of the most dangerous character; and, therefore, it was necessary that more money should be spent for their safe custody.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I think it will be satisfactory to my hon. and gallant Friend, and to the Committee generally, to know that some progress is being made with the reforms at Broadmoor Asylum. According to some statistical information I have here, it appears that the expenditure in 1870 upon the criminal lunatics was £60 18s. per head; in 1875 it was £59 13s.; and in the year ended March 31, 1881, it was only £47 4s. per head. The expenditure has been brought down from £60 to £47, which is a very remarkable reduction. Whether or not it is possible to deal with 500 criminal lunatics at a less cost than £47 per head is a thing I am not prepared at present to go into. It is plain that we must have an expensive staff of doctors and warders and persons of that description; and I should be inclined to think that if you can keep your expenditure to less than £1 per week per head you are doing an extraordinary thing. With regard to criminal lunatics sent from India, the Indian authorities do contribute towards their maintenance.

MR. RYLANDS

said, although, no doubt, the criminal lunatics at Broad-moor were dangerous, so also were the criminal lunatics in the Perth and Dun-drum Asylums, and yet they did not cost anything like the same amount of money. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look at the number of attendants in the Broadmoor Asylum, he would find that there was one for every four lunatics. Not only was it a numerous, but it was a most expensive staff—more so than the staff of any other asylum.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, there was one item in this Vote which was not found in the corresponding Vote for Ireland—that was not found in the Vote the hon. Gentleman opposite had just mentioned, for the Dundrum Asylum. On page 223 they would find, under sub-heads N and O "New Buildings and Alterations, £667," and "Alterations and Repairs to Buildings, Roads, &c. £1,800." From that it would be seen that the authorities at Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum were receiving between £2,000 and £3,000 a-year for buildings and repairs. Surely that seemed a very large sum; and, doubtless, during a long course of years Broadmoor had received a great deal more money than it could possibly have spent upon reasonable buildings and repairs, whereas Dundrum had all along been begging at the doors of the Treasury for some miserable pittance to carry out the necessary works for the benefit of the inmates—to get a dining-room where the patients could sit comfortably, for instance. Would the noble Lord explain how that exceptional item had been placed on the Establishment Vote?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, it had been thought advisable to gather together all matters connected with this subject under one head.

Vote agreed to.

(35.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £40,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department and others connected with Criminal Proceedings in Scotland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that, with regard to this Vote, he wished to move to reduce the salary of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate of Scotland. The matter he wished to refer to arose out of a case about which some conversation had taken place a short time ago upon another Vote, and he would briefly state the facts on which he founded his Motion. It seemed that in August last year a procession of Irish Nationalists took place in Glasgow. The Irish Members had always contended that processions, whether of Orangemen or non-Orangemen, if the processions were peaceful, and did not annoy the residents of the localities, were legal; and they had always held that it was the duty of the civil authorities to protect such processions. On the occasion in question, a large procession went from Glasgow to some other district, and returned 'back to Glasgow. It became evident during the day that a large mob was collecting at a certain place for the purpose of making an attack upon the procession; but no effort was made, as far as he could gather, on the part of the police, to scatter that assemblage. The anticipated attack took place, and the result was a general fight. After the fight had commenced, the police seemed to have acted with pretty general impartiality, because they arrested members of both parties. In giving their evidence before the magistrates, the police also seemed to have acted with fairness, because they proved they had taken all these parties, red-handed, in the fight. The stipendiary magistrate happened to be absent from Glasgow at the time, and the case came before a Scotch bailie, named M'Onie, whose position in life he (Mr. Biggar) was not acquainted with. This Bailie M'Onie fined all the processionists very heavily; but allowed those who had attacked the procession to go free, though the case was proved principally on the evidence of the police who had taken all the prisoners into custody, red-handed. The prisoners, on both sides, attempted to show that they were entirely innocent, and it might be very reasonably supposed that there was not very much difference in the credibility of the witnesses in favour of the processionists, and those in favour of the parties who attacked the procession, and Bailie M'Onie gave the benefit of the doubt to some of the defendants. It was singular that he gave the benefit of the doubt to all the non-Catholic defendants, and punished heavily all the Catholic defendants. An appeal was made to the Lord Advocate to have the sentences remitted if possible; but it did not appear clear whether or not the Lord Advocate had recommended to the Home Secretary the remission of the imprisonment to which the prisoners were sentenced. The magistrate had acted in such a shamefully partial manner that he (Mr. Biggar) should have thought that the Home Secretary would have at once remitted the penalties if the facts had been brought before him. There was something very special in the case of one of the prisoners. His case was different to all the rest in this way—he had come to the police court to give evidence in favour of some of the prisoners, and whilst he was there someone said—"Oh! he was in the riot himself, and we will take him too." That man was taken up, although there was no clear evidence that he was connected with the riot. Everyone who had seen a riot knew that everything was in confusion, and that it was a very different thing to keep an eye upon a person, and fix him in the mind as having been one of the rioters, and to take a person red-handed on the spot. It was afterwards proved that the prisoner could not have been guilty of that which was attributed to him, because another man distinctly stated that he was the person who had committed the act which the other was accused of. So that in this case there was a clear miscarriage of justice. On all these grounds, he thought that some censure should be passed on the Lord Advocate, for not having given the benefit of the doubt to the Catholic defendants, when Bailie M'Onie had distinctly given the benefit of the doubt to the non-Catholics. He would move that half the Lord Advocate's salary be taken off.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £39,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department and others connected with Criminal Proceedings in Scotland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."—(Mr. Biggar.)

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)

said, this had been considered a reasonable subject for inquiry; and it had been already explained by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that action had been taken by the Home Office, with his (the Lord Advocate's) assistance, for the purpose of investigating the matter. The prisoners were not prosecuted by the Procurator Fiscal, who was under his Department, but by the burgh magistrates of Glasgow. No record was kept of the proceedings in such cases; but he had obtained a Report on the subject from the legal gentleman who examined the witnesses, and the result of his perusal of that Report was to satisfy him that there was no partiality. A second appeal was made to the Home Secretary, and a further inquiry instituted, and in regard to the case of the man who set up an alibi, a very full and careful examination of the witnesses was instituted. The Report was submitted to his right hon. and learned Friend, and the subject received from him the most careful consideration.

MR. ANDERSON

said, that, as far as he could make out, the charge against the Lord Advocate was that he had failed to find out that Bailie M'Onie had acted in an extremely partial manner. He (Mr. Anderson) happened to know Mr. Bailie M'Onie very well, and he knew him to be a man of high position in Glasgow, and a man of the highest character, utterly incapable of acting in the manner the hon. Member for Cavan had described. He (Mr. Anderson) felt bound to stand up for Bailie M'Onie and defend him when he was attacked in this way. As a magistrate he might have made a mistake, and not have judged the matter so well as the stipendiary would have done; but there could be no doubt that Bailie M'Onie was quite incapable of acting in the partial manner which had been attributed to him by the hon. Member. He (Mr. Anderson) did not suppose the hon. Member for Gavan seriously meant to take a division on this Vote; therefore, he did not think it was necessary to say anything further.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he did not happen to know Bailie M'Onie personally, and he was not even aware of his profession or position in life, nor anything at all about him; but he did know what he had read. He had read a report of the evidence in a Glasgow newspaper, and he must say that this person had acted either in the most stupid or in the most dishonest way imaginable. He had acted in perfect contradiction to the evidence in one set of cases. Having taken the evidence of the police, he let one set go scot free, while on similar statements he sent another set to prison. If the Lord Advocate had recommended the Home Office not to allow any commutation of the sentence, he should ask the Committee to divide upon his Motion; but, on the other hand, if the Lord Advocate had recommended a commutation of the sentence, and the Home Secretary had not acted on that advice, it was clear that the Home Secretary's salary ought to be reduced, and not the Lord Advocate's.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The hon. Member is quite right; it is my salary that ought to be reduced. The responsibility in this matter is entirely mine. The Lord Advocate was good enough to give me his advice, and thereby threw all the responsibility upon my shoulders; consequently, if any wrong has been done it has been done by me, and if anyone is to blame it is myself and not the Lord Advocate. All that I can say is that I thoroughly investigated the case, and came to the conclusion that there had been no partiality whatever exhibited by the magistrate. Mr. Ferguson, as has been already stated this evening, said most distinctly, in his second application, he would withdraw the charge of partiality. The question was whether or not the sentences ought to be interfered with, and upon a full view of the case I came to the conclusion that there ought to be no interference.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the Lord Advocate had stated that he would not entertain the idea of bringing about a remission of the sentence unless the charge of partiality which had been brought against Bailie M'Onie was withdrawn. The withdrawal was made, but it was couched in such ambiguous terms that it was doubtful whether it was a withdrawal or not. He (Mr. Biggar) having read the evidence, really did. believe that the conduct of Bailie M'Onie was thoroughly partial and thoroughly dishonest; but, seeing that no practical good could result from coming to a division on the question of reducing the Lord Advocate's salary, he begged leave to withdraw the proposal.

MR. ANDERSON

said, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had an extraordinary method of defending his friends, because he said Mr. Ferguson made an ambiguous withdrawal for the purpose of gaining certain ends of his own, not because he thought it was just and right to do so.

MR. PARNELL

said, the case looked very suspicious against the police, if not against the magistrate. There appeared to be every ground for the impression, which had spread very widely amongst the Irish people of Glasgow, that the Irishmen who formed the procession were treated with great harshness, and that the persons who attacked the processionists were defended by the police in an improper manner. The procession was arranged by the Irish people of Glasgow, and it was walking peacefully through the streets of the town when it was attacked. No fewer than 25 of the processionists were arrested and punished severely, whilst only five of those who attacked the procession were arrested, and they were all let off. They were all aware it was the duty of the police to interfere with processions that were prohibited by law; but he was not aware that this procession had been an illegal one. It had always been the practice to arrange beforehand with the police as to the route the procession should take; and that course, he believed, was adopted on this occasion. It certainly seemed to him very unfair that those who commenced the affray should be allowed to get off scot free; whereas 25 of the people who were set upon, and defended themselves whilst executing their rights as citizens, were sentenced to lengthy periods of imprisonment.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, that if he were inclined to move the reduction of the salary of the Lord Advo-vate—which, indeed, he was not inclined to do—he should do it on very different grounds to those advanced by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). He should do it on the ground which had been declared by a Gentleman who was very popular in Scotland, the late Member for Edinburgh, Mr. M'Laren. That Gentleman declared that all the evils that existed in Scotland came from the fact that the country was ruled by a Lord Advocate; and he had expressed the hope that at some time or other they might have a Home Secretary for Scotland. These words were spoken in this House only two years age; and, no doubt, the statement was one with which the right hon. and learned Member (the Lord Advocate) would not agree. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) had done wisely in withdrawing his Motion, because the Lord Advocate was to be acquitted from all blame, though he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) shared the feeling of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that justice was not altogether done in this particular case to his fellow-countrymen in Glasgow. In page 235 there was an item for four clerks to Advocates Depute, the salaries being £80, and the total £320. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not believe these four clerks existed. There were not four clerks; there were four clerkships, but they were at present held by two persons, who divided the spoil between them. Whether all four appointments were held by one person or not at present he was not able to say; and he was obliged to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman how it was that these four clerkships were kept up, and whether there was not room here for the exercise of a little economy? Then, again, on another page there was the item for four Principal Clerks of Session, at £1,000 a-year each; but the amount only came to £2,000. There seemed to be a miscalculation of £2,000, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would explain it.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)

said, that the salaries last referred to came under another Vote. As to the four clerks, he could assure the hon. Member, whatever might have been the custom in past times, that Vote represented the salaries of four separate and distinct clerks. There were four Advocates Depute, and it was necessary that each should have a clerk in order to prepare indictments. As an illustration of the amount of work that had to be done, he might mention that all the indictments in Scotland were prepared by these persons under the direction of the Advocates Depute.

MR. J. A. CAMPBELL

said, that before the Motion of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was formally withdrawn, he wished to say he had the pleasure of knowing Bailie M'Onie, and he was sure he was incapable of the conduct alleged against him. Moreover, it should be remembered that the magistrate had the assistance of a legal assessor, so that he did not act entirely without legal assistance. Even supposing a mistake had been made, which he did not admit was the case, it was out of the question to propose that the Lord Advocate should be punished for it.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he had here an extract from the last Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General with regard to the Clerks to the Advocates Depute. This official said that between 1879 and 1880, the last completed financial year, the four clerkships were held by two clerks, each of whom received £160 a-year. The salary of £80 was fixed on in lieu of fees. He thought that the Lord Advocate would see that he (Mr. O'Connor) had had some ground for putting his question.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(36.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £39,008, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland, and other Legal Charges.

MR. FINDLATER

said, he wished to move to reduce the Vote by £650, for the purpose of calling attention to the case of Mr. Johnstone, Sheriff Clerk of Cupar, in the Eastern District of Fife. Mr. Johnstone was the sheriff clerk at Cupar, and he also had a large business as an ordinary solicitor; but he had taken in a young practitioner, a man of two years' standing in the law in Edinburgh, and had given him a partnership, nominally excluding himself from all share in the ordinary profits of the business of solicitor. Mr. Johnstone was to act as sheriff's clerk, and all the other business was to be attended to by his partner. By the law of Scotland, a sheriff's clerk was precluded from practising as a solicitor. Well, the practitioners in the district felt very strongly on that case, and they sent a Memorial to the Lord Advocate; and the Lord Advocate, in his answer, admitted that the conduct of Mr. Johnstone was a violation of the spirit, if not of the letter, of the law, and offered the concurrence of his Office in having the question brought before the Court of Session. The Memorialists were not wealthy men, and they felt it was a great scandal affecting very largely the administration of justice; and they were of opinion that the Lord Advocate should have taken the case up himself, and not have left it to private individuals to take proceedings. There was a rule in the County Court Law of England, which placed the initiative in these matters in the hands of an official; and he (Mr. Findlater) did not see why the same rule should not apply to Scotland. The position of Mr. Johnstone was one of great importance, and it was a great scandal that he should be able to tax the costs of his own partner.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £38,358, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland and other Legal Charges."—(Mr. Findlater.)

MR. ANDERSON

said, he thought the case indicated a wrong practice—it was a practice discreditable to a man who occupied a judicial capacity as sheriff clerk in a Sheriff's Court, and, at the same time, was, through his partner, a practitioner entitled to practice in that Court. It might become a settled conviction throughout the country that those who employed the sheriff's clerks partner would get a larger share of justice than those who did not. Such proceedings as that ought to be put a stop to. If it was permitted now under the sanction of the Lord Advocate and the authorities, the practice would spread all through Scotland. Already, he believed, there were two or three other cases of the same kind—cases where sheriff's clerks were enjoying a share of the remuneration obtained by their partners practising in their Courts. It was pre- tended that their partnership arrangements were such that they (the sheriff's clerks) had no share in the profits of the practising part of the businesses; but that was hardly a contention to which any weight was to be attached, because, when the partnership was arranged, the fact that the new partner was to get all the profit on the contentious business would be considered in the terms of the agreement. It was, therefore, a mere evasion of the spirit of the law to allow the thing to be done in any way whatever, and he did hope the Lord Advocate would put a stop to the practice.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)

said, he agreed with the hon. Members who had spoken as to the inexpediency of the practice of allowing the partners of sheriffs' clerks to practise in the Sheriff Courts. The sheriff clerk had no judicial duties to perform, however, and was merely an executive officer of the sheriff. By a rule of the Court no sheriff's clerk was allowed to practice in the Court to which he was attached, directly or indirectly; but it was a question whether that rule prevented his partner from practising in his own name. He thought the Committee would agree with him that the practice by which partners of sheriff's clerks undertook business in the Sheriff Courts was contrary to the spirit of the regulations; but whether a case of this kind could be made the subject of a public prosecution he would not undertake to affirm. The solicitors of the county of Fife had taken up this matter warmly, and had shown some animus towards their colleague, because they complained of his practising as a conveyancer, which was perfectly legal. If sheriffs' clerks were not allowed to practise as conveyancers, the Government would be unable to obtain the services of sheriffs' clerks for the salaries which were now paid. It seemed to him that the solicitors of Fife, having taken up the matter, were the proper persons to prosecute. He was willing to give his fiat for that prosecution when necessary, and the matter was now under the consideration of the solicitors. As to the question which had been put to him concerning the four Principal Clerks of Session, the explanation was that according to the statute there ought to be four of these Clerks, but for many years there had only been two; therefore, only two appeared on the Estimate.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he did not think the explanation of the Lord Advocate went quite far enough. The Lord Advocate was at the head of public justice in Scotland, and, therefore, was bound to take care that the law was obeyed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to leave it to private prosecutors to take up the case, but should himself see that the law was carried out.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 52: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 358.)

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN)

said, that, in consequence of the expression of opinion in the Committee, he proposed that representations should be made to Mr. Johnstone on the subject.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, that, seeing the Committee would resume work again at mid-day, it was only reasonable that Progress should now be reported.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, he was extremely obliged to the Committee for the amount of work got through, and he hoped it was not too much to ask them to make a good job of it and finish the Class, for there were only two Votes remaining.

(37.) £25,422, to complete the sum for Register House Departments, Edinburgh.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

asked what determination had been arrived at in regard to the Memorial from the "Third-Class Clerks," and the re-arrangement of the Office?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, it had been made the subject of inquiry, and the Memorial was being carefully considered.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, this was not the opportunity to bring the subject forward, and it would not be just to the claims of the clerks to do so; but he would take an. early opportunity of referring to it next Session.

Vote agreed to.

(38.) £87,340, to complete the sum for Prisons (Scotland).

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, on page 255 in the statement of the officers of the prisons he found that there were 41 chaplains, and out of the whole sum for the expenses of these, the Roman Catholic priests only received £100; and considering that a third of the prisoners in Scotch prisons were Roman Catholics, it was rather an unfair proportion. But he did not wish to do more than refer to it just now.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

asked whether the assurance the Home Secretary had given to the hon. Member for Louth as to the proportion of chaplains in prisons might be taken as embracing Scotland?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, there was greater difficulty in dealing with the subject, because the prisons were smaller than those of England; but he would undertake to make it the subject of further examination.

Voteagreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.