HC Deb 04 August 1882 vol 273 cc854-71

(6.) £46,138, to complete the sum for Law Charges.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, under Sub-head B there was an item of £21,000 for Criminal Prosecutions. He wished to ask what was the total cost of the prosecution of the Directors of the Northern Counties Insurance Society—"Regina v. Milnes?" £7,000 had already been paid; but he would like to know whether there was another sum still payable in connection with the case; and, if so, what sum? There was another case about which he wished to ask a question, on the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report in regard to the accounts of the year. He found this note— Included under this Sub-head B are payments of £6 each to twelve jurymen in the case of 'Regina v. Birch' and others. The trial of the Directors of the West of England Bank came on before the Lord Chief Justice of England and a common jury at the Central Criminal Court, and lasted eight days. At the conclusion of the trial the foreman of the jury appealed to the Lord Chief Justice to allow the jury expenses, and the Judge stated he had no power to make them any allowance; but if it were in his power he would do so. The matter having been referred to the Treasury, their Lordships, acting under the advice of their solicitor, awarded the 12 jurymen an allowance of £5 each. What he wanted to put before the Committee was the consideration whether it was a right and proper thing that jurymen in Crown cases should be taught to look to the Crown for payment, and especially that that payment was to be made only after the finding of the verdict. It appeared to him there was something about this precedent of an extremely dangerous character, and of a character altogether at variance with the popular notions of the purity of the administration of justice. The administration of justice probably stood higher in England than in any other country in the world; but if that sort of precedent was to be introduced, there was a very great danger of the great reputation of the public administration of justice being considerably assailed.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, that the question of the payment of jurymen in the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was raised before the Committee on Public Accounts. Payment to jurymen was only granted in cases of a special nature, and where a trial had continued at very great length. The Committee on Public Accounts reported that they saw no reason to question the decision of the Treasury in awarding, under the special circumstances of the case, and after the trial was concluded, payment to the jurymen in the matter of "Regina v. Birch and others."

MR. R. N. FOWLER

pointed out that the Crown had no more to do with the case referred to by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) than the hon. Member had himself.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that what the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. N. Fowler) had said only applied to that particular case; but if an example were given in particular cases that the Government would give fees to jurymen, it might come to be that a very strong inducement would be held out to jurymen to find verdicts. He believed that in special jury cases, if the juries did not give a verdict either for the plaintiff or the defendant, the result was that they did not get a fee; but if they did give a verdict, either for one party or the other, they did get the fee. He rose, however, to call attention to two small items in this Vote. Under Subhead H, he found the item of £13 for the Advocate General of the Office of Lord High Admiral, and £100 for Counsel and Judge Advocate for the affairs of the Admiralty and Navy. He desired to receive some explanation of those two items.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that, with reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), he had to say that he shared very much the views of the hon. Gentleman himself, because he considered that the payment of jurymen was a matter that ought to be very carefully watched. In this instance, however, he understood that the payment was not made until the case was over. If the application had been made for payment during the trial, he thought the learned Judge would certainly have discountenanced any payment. It was well that the matter should be very carefully guarded, lest it should fall into a precedent, and he had no doubt that it would be so.

MR. WARTON

said, he wished for some explanation of the item which concerned the intervention of the Queen's Proctor in the Divorce Court. It was a very curious thing that an allowance should be made for the intervention of the Queen's Proctor of £2,200, and that only £200 in costs should be recovered; it really amounted to this — that the Queen's Proctor only intervened successfully one time in ten. He certainly thought that the greater portion of the expenses of the Queen's Proctor ought to be recovered; but, perhaps, it would be in the power of the hon. and learned Attorney General to explain the item satisfactorily. If the £2,200 included the salary of the Queen's Proctor, there would be no cause for surprise; but it appeared that the salary of this official was £2,500 in addition.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

, in reply, said, that the Queen's Proctor received no salary at all as Queen's Proctor; but he did as Solicitor to the Treasury. As to the amount of costs recovered, it must be remembered that it was a most difficult matter for the Queen's Proctor, from various causes, to prove his case; and that, no doubt, accounted for the small-ness of the costs recovered. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had referred to the case of "Regina v. Milnes." This was a prosecution which commenced before the present Government came into Office. The trial lasted for a very considerable time; but he did not think that the outstanding payments would be at all large.

Vote agreed to.

(7.) £2,031, to complete the sum for Public Prosecutor's Office.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said that last year there was a discussion raised upon this Office, and it was certainly then the opinion of the Committee—as it was of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, and, he believed, of the hon. and learned Attorney General also— that the Office was not at all in a satisfactory condition. The hon. and learned Solicitor General stated in the Committee that it was the intention of the Government to make an investigation into the Office; that the Office had not been of as much use as was desired; and he (Sir Henry Holland) now wanted to know whether any investigation had been made into the Office during the year, and what steps had been taken to put the Office on a better footing?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, it was true that the Office was not at all what could be wished; there was not Staff enough in the Office to enable the Public Prosecutor to take sufficient care of the public interest in the matter of prosecutions. He did not object to a discussion of the matter; but if a Public Prosecutor was to be fully maintained in this country, that could only be done at a very much greater expenditure. A number of agents throughout the country would be required, and a large sum of money would be necessary for that purpose. Last year the Public Prosecutor had displayed considerable activity, and the effect of the existence of a Public Prosecutor had a great influence. At the same time, he felt that some inquiries ought to take place, and he would, represent that earnestly to the Treasury. This was a matter very much for public opinion, and he would represent the views of hon. Members to the Treasury.

MR. WARTON

said, he would remind the Committee that last year, when this matter was under discussion, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) described the present system as a sham. The hon. and learned Attorney General had spoken about the necessity for a Staff of Assistants. What he (Mr. Warton) complained of was that a certain Staff of Assistants was provided for by Parliament. Last year this Staff was exceedingly small, and this was adhered to on some excuse with regard to the Treasury. In the interests of justice that was not a proper course. The Treasury might consider whether another Assistant was required, and they were empowered to appoint one, if they thought necessary. The Staff of one Assistant, one Chief Clerk, two Clerks, and a Messenger was perfectly ridiculous; and the excuse of the hon. and learned Attorney General would not hold water, because, under the Russell Gurney Act, a sufficient body of Assistants was provided for. Next year, he hoped there would be one more Assistant provided; and, if not, he (Mr. Warton) should use much stronger language with regard to the matter.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, that it appeared, from the speech of the Attorney General, that nothing had been done this year, and that all that was promised was to represent the matter to the Treasury; but that was not what was wanted. What he desired was a Committee or a Royal Commission to inquire into the working of this Department. It might be that no more money was required, but that the matter was really one of re-organization.

MR. WARTON

said, the hon. and learned Attorney General had not contradicted his statement that it was originally intended that there should be these Assistants. He could understand the organization being commenced modestly with one Assistant; but did the Government believe in the payment of a Public Prosecutor or not? If not, they had better abolish the Office altogether; but if they did believe in it, they should carry it out thoroughly; and it was absurd, after three years, to refer it to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who did not care two pence about the interests of justice.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) £120,436, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions, Sheriffs' Expenses, &c.

MR. WARTON

said, that under this Vote there was a salary of £900 for the Clerk of Assizes for part of the South-Eastern Circuit; and also a salary of £953 for the Clerk of Assizes for part of Essex, Kent, Sussex, and Surrey. He did not wish to disturb either of those gentlemen in the enjoyment of their offices; but all these places followed one another in continuous order, and he wished to know whether it was not sufficient to have one Clerk for what had now become one Circuit, or whether the Government intended to keep up two Clerks of Assizes? If these places were to be treated as one Circuit for professional purposes, were they to be treated as one Circuit in regard to salaries?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that in these cases it was decided that whenever either of these offices was vacated, the offices should be made one, and when a vacancy occurred the Treasury would arrange for one payment.

MR. BIGGAR

asked how it was that there had been a reduction in the salary of the Clerk of Arraigns from £500 to £400?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he did not know why there had been this reduction, unless there had been a new appointment.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £101,017, to complete the sum for the Chancery Division and Supreme Court Generally.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, it was stated last year that a Committee would be appointed to consider whether the Staff of Sir William Dunbar, the Comptroller and Auditor General, should not be enlarged, to enable that officer to make a substantial and real audit of the Paymaster General's Account. He wished to know whether that Committee had been appointed, and the Staff increased; or what steps, if any, had been taken?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland), who was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Sir William Dunbar, in his last account, said— In my former Reports, I frequently alluded to the insufficiency of my staff. I have had occasion again to report to the Lords of the Treasury, and they have intimated their intention to appoint an inquiry. The examination is now seven months in arrear, and I have been under the necessity of abandoning some important parts of the audit. This officer was appointed by the House to audit these accounts in Chancery, and yet he had to complain year after year of not being able to perform his important duties. He hoped the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would give some information in explanation of this matter.

MR. MAGNIAC

said, he remembered that when these funds were transferred there was a distinct promise given that the matter should be carefully attended to. There was considerable opposition offered to the Bill on that very ground, and he thought the matter deserved very serious consideration. If these funds were not in the hands of the Government there would be—he would not say a misapplication of them—but they would get lost in the great mass of other trusts. He hoped that serious attention would be given to this subject.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that the Estimates showed a considerable alteration in an augmentation of the Paymaster General's Office.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, the question referred to the Comptroller and Auditor General's Office, and not to an increase in the Paymaster General's Office.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, the question was whether the Chancery funds were audited or not. The Comptroller and Auditor General said he could not do this, and the Committee ought to receive some answer with regard to the carrying out of the promise made last year.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

said, he did not wish to take up a strong attitude on this matter; but he thought some answer ought to be given.

MR. ARTHUK O'CONNOR

said, he thought the Committee were now in a position very different from that of last year. Then there was a Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish), who, for mastery of detail and devotion to duty, and for exemplary attendance, and his assiduity in that House had, probably, never had an equal; and he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), who had devoted considerable attention to the public accounts, could speak with appreciation of the noble Lord; but, at present, for any Member of the House to enter upon any criticism in that House of these accounts was very much like firing arrows into a haystack. The most careful criticism was utterly passed over, and that was a sad contrast to the circumstances of last year, when observations were certain of receiving intelligent appreciation from the Representative of the Treasury. Now hon. Members might make any number of complaints, and quote official authorities; but it was all no use, as there appeared to be no one who was capable of dealing with them.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, he thought every hon. Member would agree with every word that had been uttered with regard to the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish). No officer could ever have performed his duties more efficiently than that noble Lord; but when the hon. Member said that the present Financial Secretary was not performing his duties in like manner, he ought to recollect that the Financial Secretary had come very recently into his Office. There was no continuity of the promises and pledges given last year; and it was competent for the Financial Secretary to say that he did not hear pledges given two years ago, and could only take up the thread given him by the Government. He thought the present holder of the Office was doing all he could to pick up the threads; and he was certain that it was his hon. Friend's (Mr. Courtney's) desire to place these questions fully before the House.

MR. STAVELEY HILL

thought the question was not whether the present Secretary to the Treasury was carrying out the promises given last year or not. The simple question was, whether the pledges had been carried out?

MR. T. C. BARING

said, he felt bound to protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned Attorney General, that there was no continuity of pledges.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, what he had stated was that there was no continuity in the knowledge of his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney).

MR. T. C. BARING

said, he understood the hon. and learned Attorney General to say that the pledges given by one Secretary to the Treasury were not binding on another. If the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement did not bear that meaning, he (Mr. Baring) had nothing more to say; if it did, then he entirely objected to the doctrine.

MR. WARTON

said, the words used by the hon. and learned Attorney General quite conveyed the impression described by the hon. Member (Mr. T. C. Baring). He (Mr. Warton) would make the suggestion that when one Financial Secretary to the Treasury made a pledge it should be recorded; so that if he died his pledge should remain on record.

THE CHAIRMAN

We are going into a discussion on a question which is not that of the Chancery Division.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he had made inquiries, and found that a Committee was appointed to consider this matter, and had come to conclusions which were considered satisfactory, but which he was not now able to state.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) £76,209, to complete the sum for the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he did not wish to object to any item in that Vote, but to throw out a suggestion to the Secretary to the Treasury, which he might be able to use in the interests of the Public Exchequer. He did not wish to enter on a discussion of the Middlesex Registrar's Office at present, because there was a Bill before the House on that subject; but the Middlesex Registry was an office established in 1704, and it was intended to do certain work of a particularly useful kind. That work was carried out for 17 years, and after that abandoned. For this work the Court was authorized to charge certain fees and no more; and, as a matter of fact, the fees had not satisfied the Office, and some fees which were entirely unauthorized had for more than 100 years been charged. The fees so charged had enlarged the receipts of the Office beyond anything originally contemplated, and of all the officers originally appointed there now remained only one—Lord Truro—who received a certain share of the balance of the fees after paying the expenses of the Office. The Exchequer was supposed to receive a sum representing what ought to have gone to three Registrars, who were entitled to a share of the spoil. It must be remembered that the receipts of this Office came from public extortion, carried on for a long series of years. He did not blame Lord Truro, who had succeeded to an office which had fattened on the public before he assumed the office; but he had been endeavouring to discover whether the Exchequer received a fair proportion of the amount of fees realized by the Registry Office; and he was bound to say, as far as he had been able to trace the matter, there was a balance of several thousands of pounds due to the Exchequer which had gone somewhere else—he would not say to Lord Truro or to any other person—but it did not come to the Treasury; and he would suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury the advisability of obtaining from those who had the records a statement of the amounts realized—say, during the last 20 years, and the amount which, year after year, ought to have been paid to the Exchequer, and whether there was not, as he had stated, a very considerable sum, amounting to thousands of pounds, now due to the Exchequer from this source.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the figures he had before him showed that in 1881 and 1882 the amount received was £4,750, or one-half of the receipts.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, the amount ought to be three-fourths.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, there were originally four Registrars, but only one now remained; and the course pursued was that whenever Registrars were not reappointed, the fees they would have received should be divided, and the result was that for many years past Lord Truro had received one-half, and the Treasury the other half of the fees. There was a Bill before the House to remedy this matter, a Bill reducing the amount that Lord Truro received from, half to a quarter.

Vote agreed to.

(11.) £56,990, to complete the sum for Probate, &c. Registries of the High Court of Justice.

(12.) £6,162, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Registry of the High Court of Justice.

(13.) £8,971, to complete the sum for the Wreck Commission.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he could say whether the alteration made last year in respect of the expenses and fees payable in connection with the Wreck Commission had resulted or not in an increase in the public charge?

MR. COURTNEY

said, he believed there had been no increase; but, on the contrary, a decrease in the charge.

Vote agreed to.

(14.) £20,136, to complete the sum for the London Bankruptcy Court.

MR. MAGNIAC

said, he must be allowed to express a strong hope that that was the last time they would see this Vote in this form. The state of the Bankruptcy Court was a scandal to the country, and the very fact that £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 had been accumulated through the operations of the Court without check was a grievance in itself. Practices went on every day amongst Bankruptcy trustees which, he might say, approached very nearly the limits of fraud. The costs of trustees accumulated in an unjustifiable manner, immense fortunes being often made out of the property of creditors. In fact, he did not know in what Parliamentary words to characterize these proceedings. He sincerely trusted this was the last time they would see this Vote.

Vote agreed to.

(15.) £325,039, to complete the sum for the County Courts.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he wished to know whether the Government intended to take steps to put an end to the illegality of paying more than was allowed by the law for revising the accounts of the treasurers of County Courts?

MR. COURTNEY

said, they had a very fair prospect of being able to pass a clause to effect the object of the hon. Baronet. There was a Bill before the House in which it was proposed to include this clause. At present, however, there was a block against the Bill in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton).

Vote agreed to.

(16.) £3,442, to complete the sum for the Land Registry.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he was glad to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place now; because, on former occasions, no one had opposed this Land Registry Office with greater vehemence than that right hon. and learned Gentleman had done. They might expect, from the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that something would now be done in the matter. There was no division taken on the matter last year; but it was understood that the subject would be considered this Session, the Government being anxious to see it placed on a satisfactory footing. He (Sir Henry Holland) did not know whether anything had been done.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that as to the gentlemen who had been appointed in connection with the Land Registry, seeing that they were placed in the position of having very little to do, it was now proposed to transfer the Middlesex Land Registry Office to them. They would have to perform all the duties of that office combined with their own.

Vote agreed to.

(17.) £18,690, Revising Barristers, England.

(18.) £8,556, to complete the sum for Police Courts, London and Sheerness.

(19.) £286,858, to complete the sum for Metropolitan Police.

(20.) £935,298, to complete the sum for Police, Counties and Boroughs, Great Britain.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would indicate the course the Government in- tended to pursue in regard to the Bill relating to the superannuation of the police?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

It has been dropped.

Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I am sorry to hear it.

MR. MAGNIAC

said, he should like to say, in regard to the matter, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was as anxious as anyone that the Bill should be passed, and the trouble he had so far taken in the matter entitled him to the thanks of hon. Members. He (Mr. Magniac) hoped the measure would be introduced next Session, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would state what his prospect of dealing with it would then be. At one time it was said that there were great points of opposition in regard to the Bill; but, probably, these had been removed.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that "Hope springs eternally within the human breast." He himself had experienced great disappointment at his inability to pass the measure that Session, as the proposal contained provisions which were necessary to satisfy the just demands of a very deserving body of men. These men would feel very disappointed at the failure of the measure. With reference to one class of opposition to the Bill, he believed that, owing to the skill and judgment of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), to whom and not to himself (Sir William Harcourt) the principal credit for the Bill was due, the feeling on the part of municipal boroughs against the measure had been entirely removed. There had been a feeling that it was the wish of the Home Office to obtain a more centralized power over the police of the country. Such, however, was not the feeling of the Home Office; indeed, it was opposed to their wish. So far from wishing to interfere in local self-government in regard to police, the Home Office desired rather to enlarge the power of the localities to deal with the local police. That was the feeling with which the Home Office was actuated; and, that having been brought home to the local authorities, all difficulties raised by them had been removed. There was a much, more formidable opposition, one that every Minister had begun to fear, and that was the opposition of that which was called the Local Taxation Party. That was really the opposition which had been fatal to the Bill. All he could say was that he would do all in his power to secure for the measure an early day for discussion next Session.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, the real question was as to the method of paying the police. They were now paid, half by the local authorities, and half out of the Consolidated Fund. He believed that if the same proportions were adhered to in the new Bill, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would find the task of passing it much easier.

Vote agreed to.

(21.) £284,677, to complete the sum for Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

wished to know if the Secretary of State for the Home Department or the Secretary to the Treasury could inform the Committee if any system had been decided upon for valuing the proceeds of prison labour? Last year, when the question was raised, it was understood that it was under the consideration of the Home Office and the Treasury as to how the assessment of the value of prison labour should be made, checking the amount actually derived there from. As this was rather an important question in connection with Public Accounts, it was desirable that they should know what decision the Treasury had arrived at.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he did not quite gather the drift of the hon. Member's (Mr. Arthur O'Connor's) question. The proceeds of prison labour were given at the top of the page at £15,000. One thing he might say on this subject of convict labour was this— that it created a great deal of jealousy on the part of free labour. The Government desired to relieve the taxpayers of the country as much as they could by making the work of the prisoners lucrative. In order to reconcile the two kinds of labour as much as they could, they had been making an effort to employ convict labour on public works. That, they considered, would be less interfering with the public labour market than anything else. Great progress had been made; but he hoped that still greater progress would be effected in the future in devoting prison labour to works of public utility.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he wished to draw attention to a suggestion made by the Public Accounts Committee this year. The Comptroller and Auditor General had impressed on them the desirability, now that the sale of manufactured articles had become an important item, of having a more complete check than they possessed already upon that item. There should be, he thought, a Conference between the Departments on the question. The matter was one of some difficulty; but perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would do what he could to assist in bringing about a satisfactory arrangement.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the matter had been brought under his notice, and he could promise the hon. Baronet that it would not be lost sight of.

MR. MAGNIAC

said, the question had been fully discussed, and the admission, or statement, had been made on the part of the Government, that the whole thing was in a transition state, and that the value of prison labour was difficult to estimate. If nothing had been done since last year, he did not think the estimate of the amount of receipts for this labour was a very reliable one.

MR. BIGGAR

asked what had been done in regard to the bequests, made for the benefit of prisoners, in existence before the prisons were taken over by the Government?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, a Bill had been introduced that very evening dealing with the subject referred to by the hon. Member.

Vote agreed to.

(22.) £406,804, to complete the sum for Prisons, England.

MR. MAGNIAC

said, he had occasion, last year, to refer to this Vote, on behalf of some gentlemen interested in the question. The Committee was aware that many of the Justices interested in the matter had joined together to strengthen the hands of the Government in dealing with prisoners, so as to enable the Government to alleviate the condition of the prisoners. As to the conveyance of prisoners, by a legal decision given some months ago, the cost of taking them from one place to another had been thrown upon the Government to a greater extent than had been expected; and it was generally understood that the Prison Commissioners were disappointed at that decision, and that an endeavour was being made—he did not say wrongly—to save the country as much as possible of the cost of conveyance, by sending prisoners, after their conviction, to the nearest prisons in which they could be confined. It had been shown, on the other hand, that great hardship might be inflicted on a prisoner by removing him to a prison out of his own county, though the prison outside his own county might be nearer than the county prison. He was glad to hear that the matter would be taken into consideration; and he thanked the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department for the view he had taken concerning it.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, that he saw, on page 230, Proceeds of Prison Labour for 1881–2, nil, whereas the proceeds for 1882–3 were estimated at £20,000. How was that?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the £20,000 he could understand; but the nil he must confess he could not understand. Unfortunately, the hon. Member who had a knowledge of this subject had gone to bed.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

On Report I will repeat the question.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Yes; and I will see that an answer is prepared.

Vote agreed to.

(23.) £130,643, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.

(24.) £17,142, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.

SIR WALTEE B. BARTTELOT

said, he begged to call attention to the Report made by his hon. Friend sitting beside the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to criminal lunatics hitherto confined in county lunatic asylums, and to ask that it should be taken into consideration, so that the matter might be dealt with as soon as possible.

Vote agreed to.

MR. WARTON

said, he would now move, "That the Ch airman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." It was now 28 minutes past 1, and he did not know how many Bills the Government were going on with after this. Some would, no doubt, be taken, as they might yet, very easily, sit for another hour. They had to meet at 12 o'clock to-day, and the Sitting would not be like a Wednesday Sitting, which would, of necessity, terminate at 6 o'clock; but, looking at the amount of Business yet to be got through—owing to the Government attacks upon the House of Lords having thrown everything late— they might have to sit until very late. He hoped the Government would now agree to Progress being reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Warton.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the remaining Votes were not such as would cause discussion. The next Votes were for the Lord Advocate and Scotch Criminal Proceedings, the Scotch Courts of Law and Justice, and the Scotch Prisons. There were only three Scotch Votes.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

Will the Government agree to report Progress when the Scotch Votes are disposed of?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Yes.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he was afraid he should have to call the attention of the Committee to one of the Votes.

MR. WARTON

If there is to be any dispute on the matter, we had better report Progress at once.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

At any rate, let us proceed with the Votes until a dispute arises.

MR. WARTON

said, that if they took the first three Scotch Votes, and it appeared likely that a discussion would arise on the fourth, they could then stop.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

(25.) £40,260, to complete the sum for Lord Advocate and Criminal Proceedings, Scotland.

(26.) £41,200, to complete the sum for Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland.

(27.) £80,987, to complete the sum for Prisons, Scotland.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again upon Monday next.