§
(16.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,100, 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 1881, for the Salaries of the Law Officers; the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Queen's Proctor for Divorce Interventions; the costs of Prosecutions, including those relating to the Coin, and to Bankruptcy, and of other Legal Proceedings conducted by those Departments; and various other Legal Expenses, including Statute Law Revision, and Parliamentary Agency.
CAPTAIN AYLMERcomplained that the details of this sum of £30,100 were very imperfectly shown in the Estimates. It was set forth that the deficiency under the sub-head of "Legal Proceedings" was occasioned by the heavy costs of the proceedings in the Lords of the Admiralty v. Union Steamship Company, the Lords of the Admiralty v. Dunn, and in some recent Ecclesiastical cases. The costs of the prosecution of the West of England Bank Directors and the Directors of the Northern Counties Assurance Association were mentioned; and he thought that some explanation ought to be given of these items, to show whether the cases were such as ought to have been taken up by the Treasury. There was one other point to which he wished to refer. It was stated in the printed 974 Votes that the recent depression in trade, no doubt, accounted for the increase in the number of cases in which the Judge had directed the Solicitor to the Treasury to prosecute fraudulent bankrupts, and £6,500 was put down under the subhead "Bankruptcy." This was a very large sum over and above the original Estimate, and some explanation of it ought to be given.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANwished to know whether the cost of the prosecution of the chemist and druggist, Titley, was included in the Vote asked for? In this case the police had laid a trap for the man, and were, in his (Mr. A. M. Sullivan's) opinion, equally guilty with the prisoner, as though they had been convicted of a crime. He wished to know whether any money was included in the charge for that prosecution, because he considered the prosecution was one that ought to be fully discussed in the House by English Members, and those who took an interest in the administration of English justice, and desired to see that administration fair and above suspicion? There was an item in the charge—a delicate one for him to allude to, but he did not think he would be doing his duty if he did not refer to it—to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee—namely, £4,200 for a religious prosecution, "Regina v. Lord Penzance, re Pelham Dale, re Enraght, re De la Bere." He thought the ratepayers of the country ought not to be asked to vote this £4,200 for an Ecclesiastical dispute, and he strongly protested against the charge. It was a disagreeable thing and, in a certain sense, an invidious thing for him to do, because the parties interested in the prosecution belonged to a religious communion which was not his (Mr. Sullivan's); but he was not speaking from that point of view. He emphatically protested, and he was sure the people of England would as strongly protest, against payments of any kind being saddled on the country in regard to the discipline or internal domestic affairs of any religious communion. For his own part, on two occasions before this he had raised his voice in the hope and the desire that the Episcopalean Protestant Church of this country might have restored to it its ancient powers of Convocation, so that it might enjoy Home Rule in its domestic affairs, and no longer 975 have its business brought into an Assembly such as this to be in any manner determinable by gentlemen like himself. It was humiliating to any religious communion that they should have to come to this Assembly, where gentlemen like himself, who belonged to another faith, had a voice in the settlement of their affairs. Every religious communion in the country should administer its own affairs, and none of them should be allowed to come to the taxpayers for money to enable them to enforce their discipline.
§ MR. WEBSTERwas glad the hon. and learned Member (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had spoken his mind on this question, and he (Mr. Webster), on his part, was likewise bound to express the pain and vexation which the passing of this Vote would give himself and Nonconformists generally. The Estimates did not show how much of this £4,200 applied to ecclesiastical cases, and how much to the actions brought by the Lords of the Admiralty; but, whatever the amount, he stood here to complain of the country being compelled to pay for that which in no way concerned the nation at large, but which had reference only to an agitation within the intestines of the Church. It was very hard, and against the conscientious conviction of many hon. Members, that the national funds should be saddled with such expenses, and he would now give Notice that on Report, in the event of any support being given him, he should move to reduce the Vote by such a sum as would correspond with the charge for sectarian as against national purposes.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that, before the discussion proceeded any further, he should like to be allowed to say a few words as the variety of topics alluded to was likely to create some confusion. First, in regard to the prosecution of the West of England Bank Directors and of the Directors of the Northern Counties Assurance Association. These were two most important inquiries instituted last year by the late Government. In the case of the West of England Bank, the prosecution was directed by the Home Secretary, on the advice of the Attorney General, against the Directors, several of whom were convicted. The amount of the failure of the Bank involved a loss of over £1,000,000 sterling. The case lasted 976 12 days before the magistrates, and six days at the Central Criminal Court. There were 37 witnesses, and naturally the expenses were very heavy. The other prosecution was ordered by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Before the magistrates, charges wore preferred against eight Directors and five officials of the Company. The case lasted 15 days before the magistrates, and nine days at the Assizes, and, in the end, four of the directors and two officials were convicted. With respect to the bankruptcy prosecutions, he believed the increased charge was simply due to the bad times and depression through which we were passing, and the consequent increase of bankruptcies. The prosecutions in these cases had been transferred to the Treasury Solicitor, and the cost of each one had largely decreased from that of other years. Formerly, the estimate used to be £13,000, and the cost of each case about £260; but now the total charge was reduced to £8,000, and the cost of each case only a little more than half—namely, £135. Thus, these matters were being economically dealt with. But to come to what was the most important of all the questions—namely, the ecclesiastical trials, he wished to point out that there was a considerable mistake prevalent in respect to this matter. People thought that the prosecutions of these clergymen had been undertaken by the Government, and that the taxpayers were charged with the cost. This was not the case. An action was brought against Lord Penzance, and the question considered—first of all by the late Government—was whether or not his Lordship, who had tried the original cases, should be defended in this action, which was in respect of a judgment he had given in his judicial capacity. It was decided that he should be so defended; and the course then taken was only in accordance with the general practice, which was, when a servant of the Crown, in his public capacity, was tried for an action which he had committed in that capacity, to defend him at the public expense. There had been various similar cases, though he could only refer to one—namely, the prosecution of Mr. Edmonds. In this case the Lord Chancellor, Cabinet Ministers, and various other Crown Officials had been proceeded against for action they had 977 taken in their public capacity. There had also been an action against Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Mellor, and they had been defended at the public expense. He could assure the Committee that there was nothing really ecclesiastical in the matter. An action had been brought against a Judge for a judgment he had given, the contention of the plaintiff being that the Judge had exceeded his powers in having made that judgment, and the State had defended him.
§ MR. MACDONALDthought the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had not given the Committee a very clear explanation on this matter. There were a number of hon. Members below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House who cordially sympathized with the views of the hon. and learned Member for Meath on this question, and who did not wish to have the religious differences in the Church brought before them at all. Why should hon. Members be asked to vote money for that in which they did not take the slightest interest? It was true that the charge was in respect of actions which had been brought against a Judge; but they could not help recognizing the fact that those actions were the result of differences as to the discipline of the Church. Therefore, as he considered, that House should have nothing to do with the actions. He felt so strongly on this matter as almost to be inclined to move the reduction of the £4,200. He would, however, in deference to the desire of some other Members, allow it to go on this occasion; but, assuredly, if he were in the House next Session, and a similar Vote came up, he should divide the Committee on it. It was a most unseemly state of things that they should have brought before them the quarrels of the Church that they had no interest in.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked for information as to expenses incurred under this head for a Provisional Order, amounting to £200, when it was obtained from the Board of Trade for the bankrupt harbour of Anstruther, practically the property of the State?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, certain expenses had been incurred; but he would make further inquiries into the matter.
§ MR. A. M. SULLIVANThe noble Lord has not answered me as to the case of Titley.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHI do not believe any charge was included for the prosecution the hon. Member has referred to; but I will ascertain.
MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, the statement of the noble Lord had, to some extent, removed the objection to the charge; still, the actions against the Judge had arisen out of Ecclesiastical prosecutions. If it had not been for these prosecutions the State would have been relieved of these expenses, directly or indirectly. It was very painful for persons who belonged to other communions to be called upon to vote money in this way for actions arising out of internal quarrels in the Established Church. It was especially disagreeable to hon. Gentlemen who came from parts of the Kingdom where there was no Established Church at all to be asked to vote this money. He was therefore disposed, in order to test the feeling of the Committee, to move the reduction of the Vote. Though by so doing he might delay the proceedings of the Committee, he thought it his duty, in the interests of civil and religious liberty, to move the reduction of the Vote by £2,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £28,100, 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 1881, for the Salaries of the Law Officers; the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Queen's Proctor for Divorce interventions; the costs of Prosecutions, including those relating to the Coin, and to Bankruptcy, and of other Legal Proceedings conducted by those Departments; and various other Legal Expenses, including Statute Law Revision, and Parliamentary Agency."—(Mr. Dick-Peddie.)
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)thought the objection made by the hon. Member to the expenses incurred through appearances having had to be made on behalf of the Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court was well founded from the hon. Member's point of view; but he (the Attorney General) could explain that the view presented to the Committee by the hon. 979 Member had proceeded entirely from a misapprehension. The rule which prevailed in regard to these matters was a fair one. When a Judge was sued for acts done in his official capacity, it was the practice for the Crown to represent and defend him if it were necessary for him to appear. It was always desirable that no Judge should unnecessarily take part in litigation, and in many cases when questions of this kind were raised the Judge put them aside and took no notice of them But if a Judge was compelled to appear as, for instance, to defend the jurisdiction of the Court, it was impossible to cast on him the expense of defending his action in such capacity, for if such expense were east upon him very often he would be ruined. Actions might be brought against him on the weakest grounds, and very often without even a show of foundation. The Judge, if the burden of these expenses were allowed to fall on him, would say—"What am I to do? I cannot bear the cost of this litigation—I cannot take any part in it." And if he did not take part in it, the Public Service might suffer. Under the circumstances, it had been the rule for the Government to interfere to protect the judicial office. Magistrates had often claimed this protection, and had received it; Judges also had asked for it, and it had never been refused them. The same rule applied to the protection of officers in the Army and Navy in respect of acts done by them in the course of service. This was a question which might arise in connection with any suit, however temporal in its character. Lord Penzance exercised temporal jurisdiction by virtue of a statute which, no doubt, affected ecclesiastical subjects; still he was a temporal Judge. These proceedings were taken against him; he was charged with having acted without any jurisdiction at all. Proceedings were taken against him which rendered it necessary for him to appear in order to protect the jurisdiction of the Court. How could it be expected that as an individual he should pay the cost of defending it? He hoped the Committee would understand that there had been no exception in this case, and that the Government had only followed the general rule.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, it was quite impossible for him to support the Motion 980 for a reduction of the Vote. Supposing the question had been whether these matters should be dealt with in an Act of Parliament and the existing arrangements should be interfered with, probably he would have found it necessary to vote with the hon. Member. He should have been quite ready to support a Bill levelled against the Act which had caused these ecclesiastical proceedings to be taken; but when the question was one of the jurisdiction of a Court, they were bound to support that Court in upholding its jurisdiction without any reference to the particular subject which had brought about the proceedings. It was impossible for him to support the proposal.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had said that depression in trade was the cause of all these prosecutions for fraudulent bankruptcy. He ventured to differ from the noble Lord, and would tell him and the Committee that the cause was the present bad Bankruptcy Law. It would be better for both the Committee and the Government—and it would have been better for the past Government if they had done so—to turn their attention a little to England and the wants of the country; for instance, to the Bankruptcy Law——
THE CHAIRMANI must call the attention of the hon. Baronet to the fact that he is travelling beyond the Motion before the House.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, it was not depression of trade which would account for the great expense to which the Treasury had been put in the prosecution of fraudulent bankrupts. He was sorry to hear the observations which had fallen from some hon. Members. They did not appear to be educated up to the mark, for they seemed to forget that so long as we had an Established Church we must maintain that Church. It was for the Legislature that made it to keep it in order. He was astonished to hear hon. Members speak on this subject in the manner they did. [Cries of "Divide!"] When hon. Members wished to discuss anything with regard to England, some hon. Gentlemen would not listen to them; but if the subject had reference to Ireland—if anything was wanted in Ireland—there was no difficulty for anyone to obtain a hearing.
MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he had only to state that his object was served in having brought on the discussion. He would withdraw the Motion.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANwished to point out that no one had objected to the principle of defending the Judges. It was this particular case of paying for a defence in connection with an ecclesiastical quarrel that had been objected to.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (17.) £1,230, Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice (England).
§ (18.) £26,755, Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he saw under this Vote an item for the trial of Election Petitions. He had understood that the charge was to be borne by the district in which the Petition was tried. He should like to know what distinction was made between the various items, and how it was that these charges were not borne by the boroughs?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that all the expenses in connection with the Election Petitions were paid by the candidates or persons interested. These allowances were for officers in attendance on the Judges during the trials, for travelling expenses and other statutory expenses.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (19.) £650, Wreck Commission.
§ (20.) £160, Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
§ (21.) £3,010, Police—Counties and Boroughs (Great Britain).
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was not present, or he should have called his attention to this Supplementary Vote, because of the view he (Mr. Rylands) had expressed over and over again when the proposal for transferring the management of the prisons from the local authorities to the State was before the House—
§ Vote agreed to.
982§ (22.) £14,624, Prisons, England.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had to apologize for having made a mistake in turning over the pages of the Votes. He was not prepared to oppose the Vote; but he thought it desirable that the Committee should keep an eye to the additional expenditure that was going on in this Department. He had reason to believe, from certain sources, that next year the expenditure would be considerably in excess of the Estimate laid on the Table by the late Secretary of State for the Home Department—which Estimate was altogether illusory. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had told them that the adoption of his proposal for taking the prisons from the control of the local authorities and handing them over to the State would conduce to economy. But instead of proving a means of economy, the arrangement had been a means of additional expenditure; and he was very much inclined to think that nothing had been gained by that additional expenditure. All they had done was to strike a great blow upon local management.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTdid not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was present; at any rate, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) wished to draw the attention of the Government to the item—"Police claim in consequence of the decision in Mullins v. The County of Surrey, £2,000." This was an important matter to the ratepayers of the country. It had been decided by a Court of Law that the Government were to pay the cost of the conveyance of prisoners from the place where they were committed to prison to the place where they were to be confined. The decision was given in favour of the county of Surrey, and notice of appeal had been given; and what he wished to know was whether that appeal had yet been settled, and, if it had, whether the Government now undertook to pay the cost of conveying the prisoners? The question was a very serious one, as it affected the interests of the whole country, and it was one to which they had been looking for an answer from the Government for a very long time. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had said that the case was in abeyance; but he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) hoped the Under Secre- 983 tary of State would be able to give a more definite answer.
§ MR. COURTNEYwas sorry to say he could not give any definite answer to his hon. and gallant Friend. The question was an important one, and the Home Office was fully alive to the fact; but the matter was still in abeyance.
§ MR. PUGHwas not inclined to go so far as the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) in regard to this matter; still, he must say, it was a singular thing that the Estimate had been so considerably under the mark. He had had a good deal of experience in the country in matters of this kind, and he could assure the Committee that there was great attention paid to them amongst local authorities. How was it that the original Estimate of £8,000 had been exceeded by so largo a sum as £5,500? He was sorry to be obliged to confess that he had no knowledge of the case of Mullins v. The County of Surrey.
§ MR. PUGHsaid, certainly he was entitled to an answer. The matter, as he had said, was one which excited a great deal of interest in the country. It might be wrong on his part to take such an interest in it; but other hon. Members besides himself took an interest in the question and desired information with regard to it. The original Estimate for moving prisoners from place to place was £8,000; but there seemed to be an additional sum of £5,500 required, and he respectfully asked for some sort of an explanation which, apparently, neither the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) nor the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department were inclined to give. Unless some explanation were given, he should be obliged to move the reduction of the Vote.
MR. GORSTsaid, he could give the hon. Member some information on the point. The Supplementary Estimate was in consequence of the decision in the ease of Mullins v. The County of Surrey. The counties objected to pay the expenses of taking prisoners from the place where they were committed to the prisons where they were to be confined, and the Government thought that under the Prisons Act the counties were liable for the expenditure, and not the central 984 authority. The dispute ended in litigation, which was still going on. The case had passed through the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal; but it had not yet reached the House of Lords. So far as it had gone the decision was that the central authority, and not the counties, had to pay. The Government had put down in the Estimate the amount they thought would have to be paid by the country if the final decision went against them.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought it had been explained that part of the expense was due to the decision in the case of Mullins v. The County of Surrey. There was a great deal of uncertainty in the matter.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, no doubt that was the explanation; but he did not wonder at the Members of the present Government repudiating the Estimates at the time the Prisons Act was passed. The officers connected with the prisons themselves and the Prison Commissioners were aware that the Estimates were entirely fallacious. This item for police escort was occasioned by its having been necessary to do a great deal in the way of moving prisoners from one place to another in consequence of the number of prisons having been decreased. They had been informed that the Prisons Act would bring about great economy; but in the presence of right hon. Gentlemen who were Members of the late Government, he had no hesitation in saying that the Estimates of that Government had been decidedly inaccurate and misleading.
§ MR. CAINEsaid, that the Government had not given a sufficient answer to the Question. If the appeal in the case of Mullins v. The County of Surrey was in favour of the Government, what would be done with this money the Committee were about to vote?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHIf the appeal is in favour of the Government, this account will be adjusted, of course.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (23.) £5,500, Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.