§ (9.) £70,974, to complete the sum for Law Charges.
§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)I should like to know, before this Vote is taken, in what manner the employment of solicitors to conduct prosecutions is regulated by the Treasury? I quite understand that there are prosecutions conducted by the Public Prosecutor. The prosecutions conducted by the Treasury Solicitor are also clear; but there are, in addition, prosecutions conducted by private solicitors, under instructions from Scotland Yard, which do, or at any rate did, figure in the Votes. I should like to know whether any such accounts figure in the Votes now; and, if they do not, how long that has ceased to be the case? If they do appear in the Votes, I should like to know what kind of rule governs the employment of solicitors in public prosecutions?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER) (Wolverhampton, E.)I may explain that, under the Act passed last year, all public prosecutions are now practically under the control of the Solicitor to the Treasury. It is in the discretion of the Solicitor to the Treasury to conduct prosecutions himself, or to employ legal agents for that purpose. The opinion of the Committee which sat upon the question was that, as far as London and the neighbourhood are concerned, it is not necessary to employ any other solicitor than the Solicitor to the Treasury, and they expressed their disapprobation of any other course being adopted; but in Manchester, Liverpool, and other large towns, it is left to his discretion to employ other individuals who are paid on agency terms, and, therefore, only receive half of the costs, the other half being paid into the Public Exchequer. I believe that the existing arrangements are not only working satisfactorily, but economically. The Department of Public Prosecutor has, however, not been in existence sufficiently long to enable any outside opinion to be expressed as to what the ultimate result of the change will be. In the course of another year we shall probably be able to form a conclusion.
§ MR. BRADLAUGHThe answer of the hon. Gentleman is thoroughly satisfactory as far as it goes; but I wish to know if the Committee are to understand that there is now no longer within the Metropolitan District a possibility of three sets of persons being employed to institute prosecutions on behalf of the Crown? Are the whole of the prosecutions under the control of the Solicitor to the Treasury?
§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLERYes.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardine)I find that the Vote includes expenses connected with the Statute Law Revision Committee; but there is no information given as to the state of the Revision, or of the progress which is being made with it. Matters appear to be allowed to go on from year to year; and, though nothing is done, yet expenses are incurred without the slightest information being given in regard to what is being done. I wish further to know if it is not possible to obtain the Statutes which have been revised at a moderate price, and also the Index now presented and prepared at the cost of Government?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER)I may explain that the revision of the Statutes has been completed down to the year 1878; but it is necessarily a slow and expensive work. The revised edition cannot, therefore, well be sold at a less price than at present, for I need hardly say that the work is not remunerative.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURI do not think that the price of the Statutes which have been revised and published ought to be very considerable. I am not satisfied, however, with the explanation of the hon. Gentleman.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (10.) £129,277, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions, Sheriffs' Expenses, &c.
§ (11.) £352,219, to complete the sum for the Supreme Court of Judicature.
§ MR. RYLANDS (Burnley)I wish to obtain some explanation from the Government in regard to this Vote. The Vote includes the salaries of the officials in the Central Office of the Supreme Court. Two or three years ago I took the opportunity of calling the attention of the Committee to the 182 very large expenditure which had been incurred in connection with the Central Office, and to the fact that the officials of that Department of the Supreme Court were very partially employed, and that there was a great waste of expenditure in consequence of too large a number of persons being employed in the duty which devolves on that Department of the High Court. In reply to the remarks I made on that occasion, the present Lord Chancellor, the then Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell), admitted that the facts which I brought before the Committee were correct. He stated that it was impossible to justify the expenditure which was being incurred in this Department, and he agreed that under the arrangements of the Department too many officials were employed, and that there was room for considerable economy. He promised that the matter should be very carefully inquired into, with the view of securing the re-organization of the Department. I think I have mentioned the subject once or twice since; but, so far as appears from the Vote, the criticisms which have been made have not had the slightest effect upon the expenditure. On the contrary, I perceive that there has been an annual increment of salary rather than a reduction, and a general increase of expenditure. The point on which I wish to ask for information from the Secretary to the Treasury now is this — I think the pledge which the Government made to me has been carried out to this extent—that there has been an official inquiry instituted, and I believe that some Committee or other authority has been engaged in an investigation in order to see how far an impression may be made on the expenditure. Before proceeding further with my criticism of the Vote, I think my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury should tell the Committee what steps have been taken. I am alluding to the Central Office of the Supreme Court, which commences on page 211 of the Estimates, about half-way down the page. It will be seen that it includes some of the Taxing Officers, in regard to which there were complaints on the last occasion the Vote was under discussion. I trust that my hon. Friend will be able to give the Committee some information as to the steps which have been taken, even if he cannot tell us what the result of the 183 inquiry has been, and what measures the Government intend to take with a view of reducing the redundancy of officials in this Department, and to secure the economy which I think might very well be secured by introducing a change.
§ MR. ADDISON (Ashton-under-Lyne)I wish that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), whose care and accuracy in these matters we all know, had been kind enough to do what our Scotch Friends call "condescend upon particulars." I happen to know something about the Supreme Court of Justice; I have spent a good many gloomy hours there; but I have still to discover what class of officials is too numerous and too highly paid. There was some slight suggestion made by the hon. Member in reference to the Taxing Master's Office; but I have heard from that Office complaints that the officials have too much to do, and that they have not time enough to do it in. The assertion, therefore, comes with astonishment upon me that they are overpaid, and too numerous. As the House is in Committee, the hon. Member has not exhausted his power of speaking; and, therefore, in the course of the discussion he will, perhaps, be good enough to tell us which of these officers are overworked and too highly paid? He has told us that the Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell) agreed with his views when he raised the question some time ago; but I am certainly very much surprised to hear that these humble, modest, and respectable officers are overpaid. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) knows as much about that matter as I do, and his abilities are much better recognized than mine. Perhaps he will be able to bear out the experience I have gained of these officials, which certainly leads me to believe that, considering the work they have to do, and the position they occupy, they are neither too numerous nor too highly paid. I am afraid that the opinion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would not carry that weight with it which it might otherwise have unless he is kind enough to inform the Committee which of the officials of the Supreme Court his criticisms apply to.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)I think that if the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had only carefully studied the Vote which he has 184 ventured to criticize he would have found on the very page he has cited an explanation quite sufficient to answer his own remarks. It is clearly set forth, on page 211 of the Estimates, that there are six first-class clerks, one of whom is paid upon the old scale of from £600 to £700 a-year, whereas all the other five are paid on the new scale from £500 to £600 a-year. It is the same with regard to the clerks in the other classes. For instance, in the third class there are three paid upon the old scale of £200 a-year, and three upon the new scale of £100 a-year; and the same distinction appears throughout. Whenever a vacancy occurs the old scale is abandoned, and the new scale is brought into operation. So that there is a constant reduction taking place; and there is, therefore, no ground, as far as I can see, for the indefinite and vague complaint which the hon. Member for Burnley has made. But with regard to this Vote I should be glad to elicit some information from the hon. Gentleman in charge of it as to what the Government propose to do in reference to the number of Judges and the Circuit arrangements. During the whole of last century 12 Judges were sufficient to transact the business of the country; and during the earlier years of this century—I believe down to the year 1830—the Judges for the Common Law and Criminal business numbered only 12. About the year 1830 the number was raised to 15, specially with regard to the necessities of the Circuit arrangements. Afterwards, when the House of Commons delegated to the Judges the duty of hearing Election Petitions, the number was raised from 15 to 18; but, in the meantime, the population had considerably increased also. When the Judicature Act established the Court of Appeal three Judges were told off as Appeal Judges, and it was necessary to make a further increase of the total number. The Circuit arrangements were somewhat modified at that time, but not very considerably. The rule was that the two Judges went to each of the seven or eight Circuits; North and South Wales being considered one, and having two Judges between them. The Circuit arrangements were still considered unsatisfactory, and another alteration was made, by which the single Judge system was instituted; and the consequence of 185 this single Judge system has been that, although we have had a sufficient number of Judges remaining in London for continuous sittings, upon the Circuits we have had the delay, which was foreseen at the time the Order in Council, establishing the system, was issued. We had a very signal illustration of that in the South-Eastern Circuit at Chelmsford last year, when Mr. Baron Huddleston found himself quite unable to cope with the business at the different towns on the Home Circuit, and was compelled, at great inconvenience to everybody concerned, to make arrangements which inflicted great hardship upon many persons who had business at the Assizes, and especially upon the witnesses. An Order in Council enables a Judge, when alone upon a Circuit, if he finds himself unable to get through the criminal work of any particular Assize, to postpone the Commission day at the next Assize town. In this case Mr. Baron Huddleston found it absolutely impossible to get through the work which had to be done at Norwich, and he was, therefore, compelled to postpone the Commission day at Chelmsford, and also at Hertford, Maidstone, and Lewes. At Lewes it did not very much matter, because it was the end of the Assize; but all the witnesses, prisoners, and everybody who were required to be in attendance at Hertford, Chelmsford, and Maidstone were kept hanging about from day to day, and from week to week, at very great loss, and at very serious inconvenience. I understand that some representations have been made to the Government in regard to the inconvenience which arises from the present system, and when the system is revised care should be taken to provide against these inconveniences. It would be satisfactory to know, as soon as possible, whether the inconveniences which were experienced last year are likely to be repeated in the present year. There is also another point which I desire to mention. It is one which I have urged every year for three successive years, and it is one on which I have received assurances from three successive Attorney Generals that something will be done. The matter I refer to is the great delay which now occurs in the Taxing Department, and especially in the Chancery taxation. I see no earthly reason why there should not be continuous 186 taxation all through the Long Vacation. We have three Taxing Masters, and surely it ought not to be a very difficult thing to arrange that the whole of these officers should not take their leave all at once for two months at a time. The attendance in the Taxing Office is not very strict; nobody goes there very early, and nobody remains there very late. No doubt the whole of the officers, as the hon. and learned Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison) has remarked, are extremely courteous and urbane; but their hours of attendance are very meagre indeed, and very often something or other prevents an important officer from being in his place at a very early hour in the morning. The consequence is that the suitors are kept in attendance for months and months, simply because a certain amount of clerical attendance is not given during the Long Vacation. I would ask why there should not be continuous taxation, at any rate, by one Taxing Master all through the Long Vacation? It would be a great boon, not only to solicitors, but also to successful suitors who, at present, although they have vindicated their claim to justice, are not able to obtain from justice those results to which they are entitled.
§ MR. COOTE (Huntingdon, S.)There is one point to which I wish to call the attention of the Government, which at present is the cause of considerable and unnecessary expense. Sometimes an Assize is fixed to be held in a town where there are absolutely no cases to be tried. In such cases we often have the Judges coming down, together with the grand jurors and the petty jurors, at considerable expense; tenant farmers have to leave their farms and come up to the county town, wasting several hours, and when they get there they find there are no cases to be heard at all. This is not only an expense to the persons concerned in the localities, but is also a serious expense to the country. The Judges have to come down, and all the paraphernalia of opening the Commission of Assize is gone through when there are absolutely no prisoners to be tried. I think that some alteration ought to be made, and that jurors and others summoned to attend an Assize, under such circumstances, should have notice sent to them when it is found that they will have nothing to do.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardine)I believe that the inconveniences which have been pointed out have been inquired into already, but as far as I know without any practical result. I am inclined to believe that if a military man were placed at the head of affairs an enormous saving of expense might be effected.
§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)I do not know whether it is possible for the Government, in dealing with this Vote, to give any kind of pledge with regard to the important matter alluded to by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Coote)—namely, the holding of an Assize, with all the attendant inconvenience and expense, when there is no business to transact. I feel that if legislation is needed in so serious a matter, and one which involves so large a cost to the country, it ought at once to take place. It is an outrage on the Judges and upon everyone else that they should be taken down to an Assize town when it is known before they get there that there is no business for them to transact. I do not know whether legislation is needed, or whether there is sufficient power to regulate the matter by an Order in Council; but I think the Government ought to take some means to prevent such a ludicrous waste of public time and public money.
§ MR. GREGORY (Sussex, East Grinstead), who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that the officers in the Taxing Office in the Court of Chancery had very laborious duties to perform; that they performed them satisfactorily; and that there would be no advantage gained by continuous sittings. In regard to the official staff of the Central Court a Commission had been appointed, under the auspices of the Lord Chief Justice of England, for the purpose of considering the nature of the Masters' and the Clerks' duties, and the number and efficiency of the staff; and he believed that arrangements would be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of that Commission.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)My hon. Friend behind me has alluded to the Committee which sat in 1872–3 to inquire into these matters. I was a Member of that Committee, and we went into various questions connected with the expenditure of 188 the Department, and our investigation resulted in several reforms being carried out. I am not at the present moment prepared to enter into a discussion upon the subjects which have been raised, and I am certainly not in a position to say that no further reforms, even upon a considerable scale, are necessary.
§ MR. RYLANDS (Burnley)My hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison) is evidently under some misapprehension as to the nature of the remarks I made. I never meant to imply that the clerks who have work to do fail to do it, or that we should underpay them for the work they perform. What I said was that there are too many officials in this Department, and that there is not anything like a sufficient amount of work to keep them in employment; and, therefore, that the expenditure, seeing that the work is of a mechanical nature, might be cut down. The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor) has been good enough to say that if I would look at the Vote I would be satisfied, and would get all the information I have asked for from the Government. The hon. Member is altogether mistaken. The statement contained in the Estimates does not give me the slightest information in regard to the points to which I wish to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury. Let me repeat, as shortly as I can, what it was that I stated. I said that the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Justice, as established under the Judicature Act, consists of certain Departments in the High Court. At the time the Act was passed it was not very well understood by the Government how far the different Departments would be employed, and the number of the staff in the Central Office was fixed very much in excess of the amount of work they have to do. But that number has not been at all reduced since 1880, or since the period when I first brought the matter under the attention of the Committee of Supply. What I did on the occasion when I first brought it before the Committee in 1883 was to mention several cases in which there were highly paid clerks receiving £600 or £700 a-year, who had under them three or four other clerks, and who had such a small amount of work to perform that they were in the habit of going away for long periods. The hon. and learned 189 Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison) asks me to give him a case in which there is a redundancy of clerks. I will refer him to the Writ Office. The fact is that that Department is divided into six separate Departments, each of which has a very highly paid clerk at its head. I stated in Committee of Supply in 1883 that these several divisions of the Writ Department had nothing like the amount of work which was necessary to keep up the staff of officials, and that, in point of fact, several of the officers do not find it necessary to be regular or constant in their attendance. Then, again, there is the Department of the Queen's Remembrancer. That is an Office which involves a very large expenditure with very little work. In point of fact, it is notorious—so notorious that the Solicitor General—Sir Farrer Herschell—representing the Government, admitted the accuracy of the statement which I made on authority which I could not doubt, but upon information which was certainly supplied to me. Sir Farrer Herschell acknowledged that my statements were true, and he stated that a sort of tentative arrangement was made in 1880 to secure a certain number of clerks for the work of the Office. It afterwards turned out that the staff appointed was in excess of the duties to be performed; and, therefore, there ought to have been a considerable reduction in the number of persons employed, in which case considerable economy would have been effected. But, although that admission was made, since that time, as far as I can see, there is no evidence whatever of any economy having been effected. Hon. Members who are new to the House will find out before long that irregularities of this kind are frequently admitted, and that reforms are promised; but the same items appear constantly in the Estimates, and there is no evidence whatever that the Government have made any reduction. In this instance I believe the fact is that, instead of having made a reduction, there are in reality a larger number of clerks altogether than there were formerly. No doubt some of them may possibly be of a less expensive character; but it is undoubtedly the fact that there are a larger number of clerks now than there were last year, and that the total expenditure is somewhat higher. The hon. Member for 190 Sussex (Mr. Gregory) has said that a Departmental Committee have instituted an inquiry in accordance with the promise of Sir Farrer Herschell. In that case, as the Government must have had the matter brought under their notice by the action of the Departmental Committee, I think my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury might have been able to give the Committee some information as to the nature and result of their investigation. I presume that as he has refrained from doing so the information is probably not in his possession. I know that in former years the criticisms which have been passed upon this Vote have always been responded to by one of the Law Officers of the Crown—usually the Solicitor General. I do not see the Attorney General in his place, and perhaps the excuse of the Government is that they are rather deficient in their Legal Department. I should certainly like to know what steps the Government propose to take in regard to this Vote — whether the Departmental Committee is still sitting, whether they have reported, and whether the Government themselves will give some undertaking that there will be a material reduction in the expenditure next year?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER) (Wolverhampton, E.)I think the Committee is very much indebted to my hon. Friend for having called attention to these matters; but, although a grievance may be admitted, and may be unmistakable, it is not so easy all at once to put a remedy in force. The redundant or extra clerks are there, and they cannot be got rid of until vacancies naturally arise. When vacancies do arise the appointments will not be filled up. I would refer my hon. Friend to page 211 of the Estimates, from which he will see that a considerable reduction has been made with regard to third class, and also in the case of first-class clerks. There used to be six third-class clerks commencing at a salary of £200 and rising to £300. That has been altered, and the third-class clerks now commence at £100 rising to £200. At present, however, we have only been able to operate upon three clerkships. In regard to first-class clerks there used to be six at £600 a-year each; but there is only one now at £600, the other five having salaries upon the new scale at 191 £500. It will therefore be seen that considerable reductions have already taken place, although the total number of clerks appears to have been slightly increased. There has been considerable difficulty in carrying out these reductions. As to the Committee to which my hon. Friend has referred, I cannot say exactly whether they have presented a Report or not; but I can assure him that it is one of the matters on which I agree with him—that it is necessary to keep down the establishment to a proper working strength. Unfortunately, when business does increase there is an immediate demand for increased assistance; but when it decreases again those reductions are not made which should be made in accordance with the decrease of business. The amount received from fees this year in connection with the Court of Judicature was £376,627, and the amount of the cost is £421,000. Whether the time will ever come—and I hope it may—when the administration of justice can be regarded as self-supporting, I cannot say; but I do not think that the cost of administration is increasing out of proportion to the amount of business transacted. I may add that there are even yet great complaints of delay in disposing of the business.
§ MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)There is one point which the Secretary to the Treasury has overlooked in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). He has made no reference to the Queen's Remembrancer's Department. I may say from my own knowledge that the gentlemen connected with that Department are extremely civil. Fortunately, or rather unfortunately, I have had some experience of them; but what I have not succeeded in discovering is that they are very useful. The whole work of this Office could, I believe, be well done in other Offices, and enormous expense is incurred to the country by its existence. The business done is comparatively so little that the Law Officers of the Crown, and others connected with the administration of justice, do not appear to be quite aware of the Rules by which some of the business is governed. The Rules, indeed, are so much a matter of mystery that the learned Attorney General for the time being was not aware of them, and the Judges themselves do not appear to be much better informed. In regard 192 to the Exchequer portion of the business the old Rules made by the Barons of Exchequer exist in a sort of patchwork form; and I have heard of one defendant who turned to his own advantage the general ignorance which prevailed.
§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)I wish to say a word upon a point which was alluded to upon a former occasion, and to which I know that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury paid some attention himself before he accepted his present Office—an Office which he fills with so much advantage to the country. In the debate which took place the year before last a reference was made to the amounts charged for Judicature stamps. Just before the hon. Gentleman sat down he hinted that he should be glad to see the time arrive when the business of the High Court of Judicature would be self-supporting, and he added, I believe, that it was approaching that condition. Now, I hold that taking the legal business of the country as a whole it ought never to be made self-supporting, and that it never can be made self-supporting without doing injustice to some suitors, because there must always be a criminal branch of the Judicature in which the expenditure incurred in the administration of justice ought not to fall upon the suitors in the Civil Courts. If there was a strict investigation, I think it would be found beyond all question that a large surplus is derived from the fees from the Chancery Division, which really goes, to some extent, to pay the cost of the criminal business of the country. It may be that the cost of the ordinary civil business should, to a considerable extent, be recouped to the country by the fees levied; but I hold that it is an injustice to the suitors, and an entirely wrong principle, to allow to any extent a surplus to arise from any particular branch of the Judicature. It is perfectly right that the suitors in the Chancery Division should pay sufficient in stamps to allow of the proper administration of estates; but it is hardly right that they should contribute to the carrying on of the criminal or other legal business of the country. I think there is reasonable ground for supposing, from the amount received from stamps, that in some branches of Judicature they are greatly too high. It would appear from the Estimates that the total amount 193 of the Vote for the High Court of Judicature is £421,000; but to arrive at the total cost it is necessary to add £150,000 for the salaries of the Judges. It would not be fair to add the whole of that sum, because we know that half of the time of the Common Law Division is taken up with criminal business, and no one would suggest that provision ought to be made by stamps on the civil business of the Court to cover the cost of the criminal business of the country. Looking through the items of this Vote, I think there are several which ought to be taken off, and ought not to be covered by stamps left from the suitors. Take the charge for Clerks of Assize. That is a charge which certainly ought not to fall upon the suitors. Then, again, there is the charge for District Probate Registries. I fail to see why the fees levied in the Queen's Bench and Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice should be charged with the cost of the District Probate Registries, amounting to £41,000. The whole of the duties of these District Probate Registries is taken up with proving wills and letters of administration, and the stamps taken in that Department are not included in the stamps which are included in this Estimate. Then, again, there are the costs of Election Petitions, and other items which, if deducted from this Vote, would amount to £89,899. What I say is, that it is not fair that the cost of the administration of justice in these Departments should be defrayed by the fees received from suitors' stamps. I think the suitors have a right to complain of the position in which they are placed at present; and I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give some assurance that steps will be taken to carry out what I know was in his mind some time ago—namely, an investigation into the relative amount of stamps levied in connection with different branches of the judicature business, and the cost of that part of it which ought not to be paid for by suitors' stamps in the Civil Divisions.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER) (Wolverhampton, E.)I am afraid that if we were to divide the fees as my hon. Friend suggests it would be necessary to discuss other sources of expenditure beyond those to which he has referred. If my hon. Friend will look at the Esti- 194 mates again I think he will find that our expenses for the administration of justice are a very long way in excess of the fees we receive, and there is a very large margin yet to be made up before we approach anything like the balancing of one with the other. On the page of the Estimates to which my hon. Friend has referred, which gives the figure of £421,000, he will find that there are non-effective charges which amount to £200,000, in addition to the £150,000 for the salaries of the Judges, £72,000 for pensions and compensations, and there must also be added £95,000 for criminal charges under Vote 2. If my hon. Friend will add these figures together, he will find that they come to a total of £866,000, which more nearly represents the expenditure for the administration of justice than £421,000, while the fees received amount only to £376,000,
§ MR. TOMLINSONThere are the fees received from bankruptcy also.
§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLERThe charge for bankruptcy is a separate charge altogether, and is contained in another Vote. Therefore, if we take the foes at £376,000, and the cost of administration at £866,000, it will be seen that there is a surplus of nearly £500,000 to be made up before we can talk about the fees from civil business approaching the cost of the administration of justice. The cost of the Probate Registries included in this Vote amounted to £41,000; but the fees are only estimated at £21,000, as will appear from the items on the bottom of the page we are now on.
§ MR. TOMLINSONI did not refer to the District Registries of the Supreme Court, but to the District Probate Registries. I take it that the fees received in the District Registries go to the High Court of Justice.
§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLERThe matter is a very small one—the fees amounting to £21,000. I certainly cannot hold out any hope of any reduction in the revenue derived from this source. I remember the debate which took place two or three years ago on this question, at the time my hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney) was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I still hold the view that the general public ought not to be taxed for the administration of civil business at all. I 195 have never been able to appreciate the argument that the general public, out of the taxes levied upon them, ought to pay the cost of private litigation. In the Court of Chancery a very large amount of the business transacted is non-contentious—especially where it relates to the administration of estates and to questions which arise between trustees and executors; but it must be borne in mind, as I have already pointed out, that the fees received are only £376,000 against an expenditure of £866,000. Of course, when the law is put in operation by the State the State should pay the cost; but I cannot hold out the slightest hope that any Government will be likely to give a friendly ear to a reduction of the small income now received in the shape of fees.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS (Lancashire, S. W., Newton)I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the cost of putting the Criminal Law into force ought to be borne by the State. Now, that is a very broad proposition; and I should like to know how far it is to be carried out. Of course, it would include indictments at the Assizes and Sessions. Does the hon. Gentleman say that the State ought to bear the expense of the whole of those prosecutions? I am not finding fault with the proposition; but I want to know how far it is to be carried out. Then, again, there is a large number of cases which are not tried at the Assizes or Sessions, but are disposed of by the magistrates in the Police Courts. They are of a similar character; but the cost falls upon the unfortunate persons who have to be tried. A man may be brought up and fined, say, 1s. and costs. He pays 1s. very readily, but the costs often run up to 14s. Are these expenses which my hon. Friend wishes to throw upon the country, or where does he draw the line? It would have a serious effect upon the Expenditure of the country if the proposition were carried out to its full extent, and therefore I would like to know where the line is to be drawn?
§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLERMy right hon. Friend has placed upon the principle I laid down a much larger application than I contemplated myself. I simply meant the principle which the right hon. Gentleman enunciated himself when he introduced and carried his Bill. I think we are all greatly indebted 196 to the right hon. Gentleman for the service he has rendered in reducing these iniquitous costs. I think it is a gross injustice to fine a man 1s. 6d. and costs, and then mulct him in fees which amount to 16s. or 17s. That is a great fault in our administration of justice. The whole system is unsound, and it is really an additional mode of punishing a man. You give him a certain amount which is to go into the fine pocket, and another, and a much larger amount, which is to go into the fee pocket. In the conversation which I had with the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), I did not intend to lay down such a broad principle as that. I had rather, in my own mind, the cost at present borne by the State in connection with the Assizes and Sessions.
§ MR. TOMLINSONI do not desire that the cost of civil litigation should be thrown on the country. I do not differ much from my hon. Friend in thinking that the suitors ought to pay the ordinary costs of private litigation. What I said was, that from the way in which this Vote is made up criminal jurisdiction is mixed up with civil jurisdiction, and we have no means of knowing whether the stamps paid by the suitors are not more than are justified by the business transacted. If you ascertain the amount of fees, and set it against the cost of carrying on the business, you will find that the suitors in the Chancery Division are really contributing largely towards the cost of transacting the criminal business of the country.
§ MR. ARTHTTR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)I have not gathered from the Government what it is intended to do in regard to the grievous block of business in the Taxing Master's Office. None of those who have hitherto spoken on the part of the Government have dealt with the matter. Will anything be done?
§ MR. HENRY H. FOWLERI understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that that is a matter with which the Lord Chancellor will deal. Neither the Treasury nor the Home Secretary can deal with it.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (12.) £10,930, to complete the sum for the Wreck Commission.
§ (13.) £408,804, to complete the sum for County Courts.
197§ (14.) £1,942, to complete the sum for Land Registry.
§ (15.) £18,690, to complete the sum for Revising Barristers, England.
§ MR. GREGORY (Sussex, East Grinstead)No doubt, the work of the Revising Barristers of the country has been largely increased by the great addition which was last year made to the franchise, and yet it is proposed to take a reduced sum for this work. The Revising Barristers were called upon to do their work last year in 19 days, and that was considered by them far too short a period. They thought they ought to work a greater number of days, and that it was the number of hours that ought to be considered in fixing their remuneration, and not the number of days during which they could sit to dispose of their business. If the hours were considered, a certain number representing a day's work, the result would be very different to that which is shown. Under high pressure and the exceptional circumstances of the case last year, the Revising Barristers worked a great deal more than they could properly have been called upon to work; and you cannot expect them to do that constantly, year by year. They worked at least 10 hours a-day. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would give me some explanation on this point, and would tell me whether it would not be possible to assess the remuneration of Revising Barristers upon a somewhat fairer footing than that adopted at present? I hope the hon. Gentleman will see his way to do this.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER) (Wolverhampton, E.)I cannot agree with my hon. Friend, who seems to doubt the wisdom of the proposed reduction. The Vote was largely increased last year on account of the pressure put upon the Revision owing to the shortness of time for the preparation of the Register after the passing of the Franchise Act, the General Election taking place in November. I went into the matter very carefully, in connection with the Home Office, and my impression was, in regard to the increase in the number of Revising Barristers, that there was really no necessity for it. The great pressure was only put upon these offi- 198 cials for 19 or 20 days. To the surprise of everyone the work for the Revising Barristers to do is now less than it was before, owing to the simplicity of the franchise. The manner in which the Registers are made up points to a reduction in the work of revision rather than to an increase. There is another point which occupied the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) when he was Home Secretary, and one which, I have no doubt, has not failed to attract the notice of his Successor—namely, the desirability of so rearranging the work of the Revising Barristers that they shall neither have too much or too little to do. They propose that in the future the work shall be apportioned reasonably, and they are of opinion that we shall have ample Barristers even with a less number than we have at present. I believe the Home Office is in correspondence with the Lord Chief Justice on the matter. The number of days the Revising Barristers sat last year amounted to 2,324. That was with 123 Barristers. The usual number is 89, and allowing each of them to sit 25 days that would give 2,225 days in all; but last year, as I say, the number of days was 2,324. The salaries are calculated upon each Revising Barrister sitting 25 days. As the hon. Member has pointed out, last year some of the Revising Barristers made the days much longer than is usually reckoned upon; but I do not think the number of hours these gentlemen were at work would make as much as 3,000 days. My desire and that of the Home Office is to see the Vote reduced. I cannot see my way, at any rate, to proposing an increase.
§ SIR RICHARD WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)I think there is a very general desire for a reduction in the number of Revising Barristers. I would remind the Committee of another reason why a larger number than usual was asked for last year, and that is because the new franchise then came into operation for the first time. In the future we shall only have to deal with the normal increase in the number of electors from year to year, and I think that in all probability a less number of Revising Barristers than were employed last year will henceforward be sufficient. Exceptional industry and energy were shown 199 by the Revising Barristers last year. They sat long hours, and got through their work with remarkable expedition. It is necessary to deal with the question of Revising Barristers, and deal with it soon, because last year we were obliged to pass an Act dealing only with the then coming year. I hope the question will be dealt with speedily, as it is important that it should be put upon a sound and substantial basis. The matter the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury referred to—of utilizing the spare time of the gentlemen who act as Revising Barristers—must be carefully considered. The alteration of the Circuits has rendered it difficult to arrange the appointments of these gentlemen over the same area as of old, and I therefore trust the Government will deal with that matter. With regard to the salaries of these gentlemen, I think no one can fairly contend that they are too highly paid, if they do their work in the future as well as they have done it in the past.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (16.) £13,065, to complete the sum for Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
§ (17.) £409,730, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, North-West)I think that now we have the Vote for the Metropolitan Police before us we ought to hear from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary some statement with regard to what it is the intention of the Government to do as to the reorganization of the Force. As I understood from the statement the right hon. Gentleman made some time ago, there were to be certain alterations made with regard to the Metropolitan Police. I understood from him that in the matter of officers there were to be certain fresh appointments made, and that there was to be a different distribution of officers to that which at present exists. Of course, to every person who may happen to live in the Metropolis the efficiency of the Police Force is their very first concern. The Force, taking it individually and taking it collectively, has done its duty exceedingly well from the time of its organization to the present day: and I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself stated, with regard to Sir Ed- 200 mund Henderson, that during the 18 years that that gentleman has been the Chief Officer of the Force he has performed his duty admirably and to the satisfaction both of the right hon. Gentleman himself and those who have had te deal with the police. It was only on one unfortunate occasion that the right hon. Gentleman thought it his duty to make some comments, and on that occasion the Chief Officer thought it his duty to resign, and it was, perhaps, best, in his own interest as well as the interests of the Force, that he should do so. There has been a very remarkable statement made as to what are believed, I may say known, to be the services of Sir Edmund Henderson; and I, for one, believe that we cannot too highly appreciate those services, or state in too strong terms that we believe that during the time he was in power he did his duty to the best of his ability. The question as to whether or not on that unfortunate 8th of February he committed an error, I am not going to enter into; but I suppose the Treasury know what they are going to do in the case of Sir Edmund Henderson—namely, as to what retiring allowance he is to receive. But, with regard to the Metropolitan Police, taking it as a whole, no one, I think, will deny that in London it has done its duty admirably. The Metropolitan Police Force has been considered by people cognizant of the facts and well qualified to give an opinion to be a most efficient body of men for the discharge of those multifarious duties which devolve upon them. No doubt, some improvements may be effected in the Force; and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to state to the Committee the alterations he proposes to make in the organization of the Force?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)I will divide the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend into two parts—those in which he referred to the personal services of Sir Edmund Henderson and the efficiency of the Police, and those in which he asks me what we propose to do in the way of bringing about changes in the organization of the Force. As to the first part of his observations, I adhere literally to what I said some weeks ago, when the question of the disturbance on 201 February 8 came before the House. I spoke in the highest terms then of Sir Edmund Henderson's energy and efficiency throughout the long series of years during which he had been at the head of the police, and I stated that his services fully justified those who recommended him for the high office which he held. All that I have since heard confirms me in that impression. I cannot say this in better terms than I used on the occasion to which I allude. As to the efficiency of the Force, I believe that the Metropolitan Police are a most efficient Body. They have had very trying times to go through—I am not referring to the present year, but to past years—and I doubt whether in any capital in Europe there is a more efficient or better Force. So much for what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, in respect to the character of the Force. I should now like to say a few words as to what is proposed to be done in connection with the organization of the Force. My hon. and gallant Friend did not quite correctly state what I said some time ago upon this question, after having made inquiries into the matter. What I said was this—That the inquiry naturally suggested certain reforms which might be made in the management and the organization of the Police Force, and I undertook to study very carefully the three previous inquiries, and then, with the assistance of the now Chief Commissioner and certain persons whom I proposed to associate with myself, to institute a very careful inquiry into the organization of the Police Force, and see what reforms, if any, could with advantage be carried out, having before me not only the evidence taken in the early part of this year, but also previous Reports, and evidence taken by previous inquiries. I said that we should not undertake this inquiry until after the appointment of the new Chief Commissioner, and when Sir Charles Warren arrived to take up his appointment I consulted him as to the time at which the inquiry should commence. Sir Charles Warren, I thought very properly and naturally, said that he should like a short time to elapse before entering upon an inquiry of that kind, and I therefore arranged with him that it should take place as soon as possible after Easter, and the inquiry will commence next week. I am thus fulfilling 202 literally the promise which I made. I cannot say the exact day on which the inquiry will commence, but it will commence next week. I am happy to inform the Committee that my right hon. and learned Friend and late Colleague the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), who occupied the position of Attorney General for many years, has been so good as to offer to assist me; and I do not know anyone in the House who is capable of rendering, or who is likely to render, greater service in this respect than my right hon. and learned Friend. I shall also have the assistance in making the inquiry of one of the most distinguished Metropolitan Police Magistrates. We shall, therefore, I think, have a body of gentlemen most competent to undertake this searching inquiry. I do not conceal from myself that our labours will be of a very serious character, and may occupy a long time; but, as I said before, I think it better that an inquiry of this kind, after the previous inquiries that have taken place, should be conducted under the direct responsibility of the Head of the Department. I have, therefore, undertaken the responsibility; and I hope that before very long I shall be able to communicate to the House what recommendations may be made as to the better organization of the Force, or as to any additional appointments that may be made, or any economies that may be effected. My hon. and gallant Friend was quite mistaken as to what I said some time ago upon the question of appointments. All I did was to explain to the House what the general tenour of the evidence upon this question taken by the Committee was. That evidence has been laid on the Table, and beyond what was contained in the Report I did not commit myself to anything. I am glad to repeat that now, because an impression has got abroad that a large number of appointments are about to be made, and I am almost afraid to tell the Committee the number of hundreds of applications; but there are several hundreds, which I have received from gentlemen anxious to serve Her Majesty in connection with the Metropolitan Police Force. I think, now, I have answered all the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS (Lancashire, S. W., Newton)I am very glad 203 indeed to bear a great deal that has fallen from the right hon, Gentleman who has just sat down. When those unfortunate occurrences of the 8th of February took place, soon after the right hon. Gentleman came into Office, it is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman stated what he now tells the Committee with regard to Sir Edmund Henderson, and as to the conduct of the Metropolitan Police Force. But there is no doubt that at that moment the public mind was disturbed in consequence of the occurrences which had taken place, and the words of the right hon. Gentleman did a great deal to allay the apprehension which, undoubtedly, arose in certain quarters. I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is now able to confirm what he then said, because since that time he has had an opportunity of investigating generally the conduct and general management of the Metropolitan Police, and has become better acquainted with Sir Edmund Henderson and the services which he has rendered. The right hon. Gentleman was thus able to speak with greater authority; and I, for one, am extremely glad to hear, after the full investigation and after the careful attention which the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, paid to the question of the Metropolitan Police since he has been in Office, that he is now able to reassure the Committee and the country as to the high character and conduct of Sir Edmund Henderson, and as to the good which he has done in the Force and the services he has rendered to the country. And I am equally glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was able to bear that testimony to the general character of the Metropolitan Police Force which we have just heard, because I entirely agree with him that there is no Police Force in any country which can compare in efficiency with the Metropolitan Police Force. We may rest assured, therefore, that the general public get a good return for their money, and have a very efficient force to protect them. No one is better aware than I am of the great number and the variety of the duties which the police have to perform. I have watched the enormous growth of the Force in former years, and I have carefully watched its progress since I have been out of Office. I have seen it develop until it now numbers between 204 13,000 and 14,000 men. You can scarcely expect that such an army can be officered by a similar number of persons as served to officer it when it was smaller; and I can well believe that there are a great number of questions to go into and to examine very minutely in connection with it. I am glad to find that the Home Secretary will have the assistance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) in the investigation which he is going to make. No doubt the country will watch, and I am quite sure the Metropolis will watch, with great interest the proceedings of the inquiry, the Report of which will be looked for with great interest. I am pleased to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as the new Chief Commissioner is concerned, he has not been in a hurry in entering upon this matter. It was certainly wise on his part to say that he would make no recommendation, and enter into no examination, and that he would not go upon the Committee until he had had time to see what the Force was, and what was required. I hope the Committee itself will approach the subject in the same spirit of caution as the Chief Commissioner, and that they will not think there is occasion for being in a hurry to make their Report, or for making the arrangements or alterations in the Force that are necessary. I thought it only right to make this statement, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Force and Sir Edmund Henderson.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (18.) £30,000, to complete the sum for Special Police.
§ (19.) £852,311, to complete the sum for Police — Counties and Boroughs, Great Britain.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, North-West)I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary when it is likely that the Bill for the superannuation of the Police will be brought in? It is really a very important question. We find now that the expenses are becoming extremely heavy on the county rates. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say the other day that the Government intend to bring in a Bill which would 205 place the Superannuation Fund as to the Police Force in the same position as the money now granted by the State. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do that. That was what I understood him to say, and it was a very satisfactory statement, if I am correct. If I am not correct, I am afraid he will find when he brings in the Superannuation Bill that there will be the same opposition to it as there has been to every Superannuation Bill before, because we believe that as half of the cost of pay and clothing and maintaining the police is defrayed by the public, so when the men have done their duty to the county and to the State, only one-half the superannuation payments should fall upon the county, the remainder falling upon the Consolidated Fund.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPAETMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)The Bill the hon. and gallant Member refers to, and about which I said something in a recent discussion, is in an advanced state of preparation. I have, in fact, been engaged upon it to-day. I promised the House that I would bring it in as soon after Easter as possible, and I will keep my word. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken if he thinks I said a word as to how the expenses of superannuation would be met. I was very careful not to say anything of the kind. I said it would be a complete Bill, and one which I hoped the House would accept, and I trust that that promise will be adhered to.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTThis is an important question, and one which has taken up a great deal of the time and attention of the country. I think we should have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. CHILDERSWhen I bring in the Bill I will state what the details are. At the present moment I will make no statement on the subject, either positively or negatively.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (20.) £286,644, to complete the sum for Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardine)desired to understand whether the Government did not propose to suspend the building of prisons under this Vote until the House had 206 had an opportunity of discussing the matter?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)No, Sir; we have no such intention. The prison at Dover is actually in course of being built, and we have no intention of interrupting the work.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURhad understood the Prime Minister to say that the granting of this money in no way committed the House to the building of that prison.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (21.) £406,035, to complete the sum for Prisons, England.
§ MR. RYLANDS (Burnley)I would not like to take precedence of my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary (Sir E. Assheton Cross) on such a subject as this; but I shall be very glad if he will allow me to make a few remarks, because I am going to make an appeal to him. The Bill under which the management of the prisons was transferred from the county magistrates to the Prisons Board was brought in by the right hon. Gentleman, and I remember that on that occasion I took the opportunity of opposing the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore I have some claim to return to the subject now that we have had experience of the right hon. Gentleman's measure. Now, the right hon. Gentleman himself, who, before he took the more distinguished position of Home Secretary, had had very considerable experience as a county magistrate in the county with which we both have the honour of being connected, knew as well as anybody that the county magistrates were administering the county prisons with great ability and great economy; and I opposed this transfer to the State because I believed they would not be more economically managed, and that the burdens on the taxpayers would be increased; and, in the second place, because I thought it was far better to leave with the county Justices some such real real public duty as this to perform. Now, I want the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the working of the Act which he passed has fulfilled his expectations? [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes.] Well, I mean to say that it has not fulfilled the optimist views which he expressed when he brought in the Bill. I 207 recollect that he said that the cost of managing and maintaining these prisons would be reduced; and he persuaded the House that by the transfer we should get the whole thing done for next to nothing Well, look at what we are doing. It is quite true that the Vote shows a small diminution this year, but that is accounted for by the falling off in the number of prisoners. In reality there is no diminution on this Vote. The charge for prisoners is £27 a-year per head; and the right hon. Gentleman will remember that at Salford and one or two other prisons in the county where he was a county magistrate himself, the cost under the magistrates was only £ 17 a-year per head. Here we are asked to pay £27 per head where we only had to pay £17 formerly; but that is not all. If you look down below at the bottom of the Vote, you will find this unfortunate item, which I am sorry to say is creeping into all our Votes—"non-effective charge." The non-effective charges have been steadily increasing, and have risen from £6,000 odd to £7,000 odd, and they will, I am sure, go on increasing in a still greater ratio during the next few years. There are other items also which are not included in this Vote, and which must, of necessity, be increasing. Such, for instance, as pensions which are becoming payable. Then I venture to predict that the cost of new buildings and works of all kinds which will be deemed necessary by the Government will go on increasing, for I regret that I have no confidence in the Government administration of such works. What I say is that all Governments are unreliable in regard to the expenditure of public money; and I say with regard to public prisons that Broadmoor was a proof to us that the cost under the Government would be greater than the cost under the county magistrates. Now, there again, one of the items which is increased is for new buildings, alterations, and repairs, the Estimate this year being nearly £4,000 more than last year. Again, the purchase of land is another item which has largely increased. Now, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, can he say, on these Estimates, that he has any reason to be satisfied with the alteration which he made in the Act he passed, and have the results reached his expectation? For my pact, I doubt the diminution of expendi- 208 ture, and I doubt the improvement in the administration, and therefore I venture to protest against the transfer which has taken place, although I do not propose, on this occasion, to move the reduction of the Vote.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS (Lancashire, S. W., Newton)In reply to the hon. Member, Sir, I can say this, that the expectations which I had when I brought in the Bill many years ago have been in the main fulfilled by experience of the change. It is not much use talking about the figures now, because we have not got them before us, and I am sorry for that reason that this discussion has been brought on so early. I thought, however, that the hon. Gentleman might ask some questions on this subject, and therefore I asked Sir Edmund Du Cane to prepare some figures on the matter, and he kindly undertook to supply me with the necessary statistics, but they have not yet come to my hand. But still, from the correspondence which I have had on the subject, I can assure the hon. Member that the reduction of charge for the prisons in England is very great indeed, and does quite come up to expectations. I always doubted the accuracy of the accounts kept by the local magistrates, and for this reason. It was easy to know how much they spent; but in different counties they adopted different methods of calculating their receipts, and in a great number of counties the magistrates credited themselves with sums and figures for which there was little foundation when they came to be sifted, and which seemed to have been arrived at on no kind of principle. The question of the cost of a prison is different from that of prison earnings, and I do not think that I am quite satisfied as to the amount of prisoners' earnings apart from their cost; but I am certain that their earnings will go on improving; and of one thing I am quite certain, and that is that in calculating the earnings of prisoners everything is done in the most rigid manner, and not a single thing is put down to the earnings of the prisoners that ought not to be. In fact, I can say that the accounts of prisoners' earnings are kept in a far more rigid manner than they were when the prisoners were under the control of the county magistrates. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) will allow me 209 to say that he and I have the privilege to be connected with a county which is celebrated for its finance, and I admitted at the time when I brought in the Bill that if all the accounts were kept and all the prisons were managed as those in the county of Lancaster, there would have been no necessity for the Bill at all. But when the hon. Member points out that in that county the cost of prisoners was only £17 per head, I would point out to him that there were other counties in which the cost was as much as £40 a-head, and others in which the cost was £30 per head. I am more satisfied, however, that the discipline in the prisons generally is much improved, and even though that improvement has had to be purchased at an increased cost, I am sure the country would be willing to incur the charge again. The last time this matter was discussed several authorities, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) and the right hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), admitted that they were agreeably disappointed with the results of the measure, and there could not have been stronger testimony to its success than was then volunteered. But I was rising, Sir, for a totally different purpose than the discussion of these matters. I was rising to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Childers) whether he does not think that the time has now come to consider, at all events, the advisability of amalgamating the Commissioners of Prisons with the Directors of Convict Prisons, and whether a great saving might not be effected if those two Departments were amalgamated? The matter came before me just before I left Office; but I decided that I required more information, and that the matter required more inquiry than I could give to it. I am not at all certain whether it is not worth while considering whether something of the kind cannot be done, although I should be very sorry to recommend it upon the slight amount of information which I have. I should, therefore, like to be allowed to suggest the matter to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and to ask him to inquire into it. With reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), I am satisfied that if the hon. Member likes to move for a Return re- 210 lating to the five years preceding the Acts, and the five years subsequent to their passing, it will be found that the results are most gratifying, and bear me out in what I have said.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, North-West)I think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) should very carefully consider the suggestion which has been made by my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross), because I think he will find that very grave doubts may arise in the matter, and legislation of such importance as that should not be passed without very careful consideration. I opposed the Act of my right hon. Friend as strongly as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands); but all that has gone by now, and it appears to me that it is no use referring to what we did years ago. What we have to do is to make the present system as good as possible. When my right hon. Friend refers to the cost of prisoners per head under the county magistrates being £40 and £30, of course that was so in some cases; but it was only in the case of very small prisons where they were obliged to keep a large staff, and only had a few prisoners. With regard to prison labour, I would call attention to the fact that there is a diminution of £1,000 in the amount put down in the Estimate for this year. That was one of the questions which was raised by my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and, for my part, I think the earnings of the prisoners appear to be small, considering what the expenditure is upon the gaols. I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will go into this matter, because it does seem to be a most important one.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)I will not detain the Committee by entering into the question which has been raised by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) made out a very good primâ facie case in support of his Bill, and he will not find me amongst the opponents of what has been already done. I do not believe that any figures on the subject of the former expenditure upon the gaols are in any way reliable; but I 211 have the figures since they have been in the hands of the Government, and I am glad to say that they show a steady diminution in the charges. I am afraid, however, that there will be an increase in the Superannuation Charge, and, perhaps, there will be an increase under a few other heads. With respect to the question of the amalgamation of the two Prison Departments, I took some part in the discussion when the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman was introduced; and with the permission of the right hon. Gentleman I was in communication on the subject with Sir Edmund Du Cane, as I was much interested in the financial and administrative effect of the measure. Without going into details, I must say that I think everyone must feel that to carry on two branches of the same Department with two different sets of officers, is scarcely an economical or business-like arrangement. One of the first questions which came before me, when I took Office a few months ago, was whether the time had not come when something in the direction of amalgamation should be done; and all I have now to say is that the matter is at present under consideration, and that I shall study it with the very gravest attention. In regard to the diminution in the estimated proceeds of prison labour which was pointed out by the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), the subject is a very important one, and I thank the hon. and gallant Baronet for having mentioned it. It is true that there is a diminution of £1,000; but then it must be borne in mind that the number of prisoners has been reduced in a still larger proportion. It is important that we should reasonably utilize prison labour in the manner best suited for the public advantage, interfering as little as possible with outside trade; and all I have to say is that the matter shall have our very best attention.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (22.) £210,852, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Great Britain.
§ MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)No doubt, the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been drawn to the matter to which I am about to refer. I mean the small amount of contribution which has been received from the 212 parents. In 1885–6 the amount received in England and Wales was £17,500, whereas the Estimate for 1886–7 is only £15,000. Now, when we come to remember that the reason of the presence of the children in these schools is owing, in the majority of cases, to the neglect of the parents, because they have not taken care of their children, I think the Government should take care that such neglect is not made a source of emolument to the parents, and that they should be made to pay as much as possible. I do not think that sufficient care has been taken to collect the contribution due from the parents; and I do hope that some trouble will be taken to prevent this decrease falling off further. I will not say any more on this point now, but I earnestly trust that it will occupy the attention of the Government. In their Report of last year, the Royal Commission, dealing with these schools, made suggestions with regard to this matter; but I believe the question is still in abeyance. I hope, however, that the attention of the Government will be directed to the subject, and that the Report of the Committee will no longer be allowed to remain ineffective. It is satisfactory to find from the Inspectors' Report of last year that the schools are well conducted and their progress satisfactory; but there was one most important suggestion made by them, in which I think they followed the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and that was that the managers of these schools should have certain powers of guardianship, and should be allowed to apprentice children, or place them in homes at the expiration of their time, where they can receive a careful training, instead of being returned in all cases, and of necessity, to their parents. The parents are sometimes very unsafe people to send the children back to; and, therefore, these managers should have some powers of guardianship. Then, I think, there is great force in the recommendation that a change should be made in the system of classification—that there should be a distinction between reformatory schools on the one hand, and industrial and truant schools on the other. It seems to me, as it does to the Inspectors, that school boards should have nothing to do with industrial schools. Their business is to deal with truant children, and not to mix 213 themselves up in industrial schools; and I trust that the superintendence of school boards will be confined to truant children. It is satisfactory to find that the growth of the cost of industrial schools has been arrested, and that there has been a very considerable decrease in the committals of juvenile offenders under 16 years of age. I find that the number committed in 1861 was 8,801, while in 1884 the number had fallen to 4,879. This appears to prove that we are proceeding on right lines, and that the endeavours which have been made to train up these children by wholesome discipline have been satisfactory, and that recruits to the miserable army of crime have greatly and most satisfactorily diminished in number. It is quite necessary that these points should be brought before the Committee, because the grants to these schools are, after all, very considerable. I see the total cost of industrial schools, according to the last Report was £370,000, the grant made from the Treasury being £183,000. With reference to reformatory schools, the total cost was £127,000, and the amount paid by the country £85,000. Therefore, seeing that the country is paying so large a sum in aid of these schools, it does appear to me, even on financial grounds, to be of great importance that larger sums should be collected from the parents. It is, however, on the educational and moral side of this question that I would impress upon the Committee the great importance of exacting from parents a fair proportion of the cost of the maintenance of their children in these schools.
§ BARON DIMSDALE (Herts, Hitchin)Upon this matter I am desirous of bringing under consideration another point—namely, whether it would not be possible to throw all the expenses of reformatories entirely upon the Imperial Exchequer, and whether it is not a charge which could be made consistently with the Prisons Act of, I think, 1876? Now that we are suffering from such general distress, it is important that every charge of which the localities can be relieved should be imposed upon the National Exchequer. No charge which can be defrayed out of Imperial resources ought to be put upon the rates. I say this because in the Prisons Act I remember a clause especially exempting reformatories, and stating that they 214 ought to be thrown as a charge upon the rates, and that they are not to be placed in the same position as prisons. On the ground that these places partake of that character, I think it is time that this measure of relief should be afforded by the Government. When I ask this, I ask it, I say, on the ground that it is in accordance with the Prisons Act passed some years ago.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardine)I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary can inform me why this charge, so far as it relates to Scotland, is continued under the Home Office? I thought it was decided when the Office of Secretary for Scotland was established that all Home Office duties should be referred to him, and necessarily that the charges should be administered by him. I still, however, find some of these charges under the Home Office. With regard to the merits of this Vote, I would call attention to the fact that the sum paid by the parents of the children in Scotland is higher than the sum paid by parents in England. That appears to me to be very anomalous. I merely draw the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to it to know whether or not I am right.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Baron Dimsdale) is one I am not competent to deal with. It has never come before me, either as Chancellor of the Exchequer or as Home Secretary, and I do not think I could deal with it in any way. As to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. F. S. Powell), I will, in the first place, say that I cannot absolutely undertake to bring in a Bill this year for dealing either wholly or partly with the question discussed by the Royal Commission. The whole of the evidence has not been very long in our hands, and though I have read the Report, I cannot say that I am in possession of sufficient information to enable me to draft a Bill to recommend to the House of Commons. Several of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission of which the hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was so valuable a Member, and upon which we had the assistance of other high authori- 215 ties, ought to become law. My impression is that the whole subject ought to be dealt with by the Government when it brings in a Bill on the subject, and though, as I have said, I am prepared at some period to bring in a Bill, I do not think it can be introduced this Session. I think I used the same words in answering a Question upon this subject some days ago. Then my hon. Friend referred to the general aspect of the Vote and the amount recovered from parents, and he pointed out that that amount is not sufficient. This year, I think, the amount so recovered is less than last year. Well, it must be remembered that the class from which these children come is an extremely poor class. They come from the dangerous classes, who are not such as it is possible to hope can contribute largely towards the support of their children, whom it is clear that, in a great majority of cases, they have not kept. This is not a class from which we can expect to receive large sums, particularly at the present time, when a great fall in wages has taken place; but I think the Committee ought to be satisfied that we are moving in the right direction. The children who are now the subjects of treatment in reformatory schools are, as a rule, the children of parents brought up in ignorance. But we are shaping very rapidly into another state of things, and parents of the same class from whom we receive many of these children in 10 or 15 years from now, or even in much less time, will be much better instructed, and will be of a class containing a much smaller percentage of criminals than are found in it at present. Therefore, my own personal opinion is that, with the improvements in the management of the schools, and considering the class from which the children come, we shall have, before very long, not only a very considerable economy brought about, but a smaller proportion of children to send to these schools. That is my own individual opinion, and I know it is the opinion of others who have looked more deeply into the subject than I have been able to do. There can be no doubt that, at the present moment, children are sent to these schools in large numbers; but I think the number will fall off in years to come, and that it will be very much owing to measures for the improvement 216 in the condition of the people passed by this House. The question of the contributions of parents is an important one; but I do not think that at the present moment we can expect to increase them. As time goes on we may expect to do so.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,In reply to the hon. and gallant Member (Sir George Balfour), I have to say that it will be, perhaps, in his recollection that, when the Bill for the appointment of the Secretary for Scotland was before this House, it was explained that it had been considered by the Government, as, indeed, it was again considered by the House, what would be the proper place at which to draw the line between matters of lay administration transferred to the Secretary and matters of criminal concernment that were to remain with the Office of Lord Advocate. It was explained at that time to the House—I think it was made a matter for consideration, at any rate—whether reformatory and industrial schools fell under the one category or the other; and the view taken by the Government was that, as the Secretary of State had a great deal to do with these children—very similar to what he has to do with criminals in the matter of remitting sentences, and so on—it would be better, on the whole, that the reformatory and industrial schools should remain with him as before. Economy of administration may have had something to do with it; but the real reason why these institutions remained with the Secretary of State is what I have described.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURThe right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the question I addressed to him as to why it is that the parents of these children in Scotland pay more than the parents in England?
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURI do not know whether what the hon. and gallant Member states is the fact; but, even if it is, I am afraid that this question does not come within my province. I am not aware that the Scotch parents pay more than the English.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (23.) £24,282, to complete the sum for the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
217§ (24.) £54,356, to complete the sum for the Lord Advocate and Criminal Proceedings, Scotland.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)Before making a few remarks upon this Vote, I would say that the Scotch Members have some reason to complain that these important Scotch Votes should be brought up the first night after the Recess. It was not expected that they would be brought forward at this time; and the consequence is that very few Scotch Members are present. There is a very marked contrast between the consideration that is given to Irish Members with respect to Votes relating to Ireland and that given to Scotch Members in regard to Scotch Votes. I should be very glad if the Secretary to the Treasury or the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate could still see his way to postpone these Votes. There are certain questions arising under some of them in which some of the Scotch Members are very much interested. One important matter to which I wish to call attention is that with respect to Procurators Fiscal. There has often been a desire expressed by Scotch Members that Procurators Fiscal should be confined to the discharge of the duties of their office. It is considered, and must be felt as an anomaly, that Public Prosecutors in Scotland should be engaged in general law business, in the course of which occasions might arise when their interest to their clients and their duty to the Crown might to some extent be at variance. That has been, I believe, to a very large extent, or, at least, to some extent, the cause of difficulties which have arisen in the Western Highlands with respect to the administration of the law. I can only say that, from information I have received, very great dissatisfaction is felt in the Western Highlands with the administration of the law by the officials of the Crown. In some cases, at least, the Public Prosecutor representing the Crown is also the factor or law agent for the proprietors of the district. Now, when agrarian questions are coming very much to the front, there is very great reason to fear that Procurators Fiscal so placed may not be able to act with perfect impartiality in the questions coming before them. At all events, the position is one which no one should be called 218 upon to occupy. I am, therefore, very anxious to hear from the Lord Advocate what has been the result of his endeavour to get Procurators Fiscal in those districts to confine themselves exclusively to the representation of the Crown, and not to engage in other business. In the earlier part of the Session the Lord Advocate, in reply to a Question put to him, informed me that negotiations were in progress, and I now wish to know if these negotiations have been completed, or whether there is a prospect of their being completed, and whether, if he does not expect soon a reasonable settlement of any difficulty which may have arisen, he will undertake, on behalf of the Government, to bring in a Bill so as to give the Government of the day greater control over Procurators Fiscal than they have at present? The condition of matters at present is certainly unsatisfactory; and when there is every prospect—I am sorry to say it—of agrarian disturbances extending throughout Scotland, it is most important that the administration of law, particularly in respect of agrarian questions, should be with someone who is in an independent position, and not connected with the landlords of the district where he acts. I shall be prepared to move the reduction of some of the salaries of Procurators Fiscal, unless I get a satisfactory explanation from the Lord Advocate as to the progress that is being made with the negotiations that have been commenced with the view of restricting certain Procurators Fiscal in the Western Districts to represent the Crown only. I think we ought also to have an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that, in filling up new appointments, they should endeavour as much as possible to have it stipulated—to lay it down as a condition to taking office—that Procurators Fiscal should confine themselves strictly to the representation of the Crown, and not engage in private business.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,My hon. Friend said something at the outset with respect to these particular Votes for Scotland being taken this evening; but I am not aware that the slightest indication was given, either to the Secretary to the Treasury or to anyone else, that there was any desire that they should not be taken. I would point out that 219 they belong exactly to the same category as the Votes that have just been gone through for England, and I am quite sure that the taking of the Scotch Votes is not in the least meant as any discourtesy to my hon. Friends from North of the Tweed. In regard to the matter raised by my hon. Friend in debate, it has been very often my duty to say something on that point, so that I shall not feel it necessary to do so again. I have more than once stated during our tenure of Office that the Government have gone a great deal in the direction my hon. Friend pointed out—more, I think, than has ever been done by any previous Government; and wherever it has been possible to get a good man to undertake the duties, and to limit himself to those duties where there is adequate employment and adequate salary, we have always followed that course, though the appointment is not with the Crown, but with the Sheriff, subject to the confirmation of the Secretary of State. I do not think we have ever found any difficulty in that respect, where there was adequate work and where adequate salary could be obtained. In regard to those particular cases in the Western Highlands that have been referred to, it is the fact that in the case of three—Stornoway, Portree, and Loch Bay, which, I think, cover the whole of the ground referred to by my hon. Friend—we did make proposals and had communications with those gentlemen as to whether arrangements could be made by which they would confine themselves to their public duties alone; and although these arrangements are not completed, I think I may say that there is every prospect of their being so. At all events, with regard to one of these gentlemen with whom I had communication, his son came up to London a few days ago to have an interview on the subject, and we received a letter dated the 24th of April explaining the terms on which this gentleman would be prepared to give up certain private practice. I do not think it would be practicable to state the terms suggested in that letter; but when I have said this much I have indicated that the matter has been taken up, and I hope that these negotiations may be carried to a satisfactory conclusion. As to what has been said about a Bill, I have, in answer to a Question, stated that in the event of those nego- 220 tiations failing the Government, I think, may consider whether it would not be proper to introduce a Bill giving power to have a settlement effected, even if there should be an unwillingness on the part of those gentlemen to agree. I hope that will not be necessary. It is very desirable that in those particular localities there should be a severance of private and public business. Without giving a pledge on the part of the Government that they will introduce such a Bill, I say that if the negotiations fail I will certainly recommend to the very serious consideration of the Government whether such a Bill should not be prepared. With respect to the prospect of agrarian disturbances spreading over Scotland generally, I hope there is no such prospect. I have no reason to believe that there is. I have more faith in the qualities of the great bulk of my countrymen than to believe that there is any such fear.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardine)I would suggest that the Estimate should show the number of Procurators Fiscal paid by fees, and the number paid by salary. If that were done year by year, we should see whether there is a decrease in the number continuing private practice as well as their public duties.
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURI am under the impression that there is a Return on that subject—that the information the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks for really exists in the form of a document laid on the Table of the House. I would point out that where you are making an estimate of fees you necessarily cannot predict what they will amount to. They vary from year to year with the amount of work done, so that while it is right that there should be a Return containing the information asked for, it will never be possible to state what the sum will be; but, averaging one year with another, the Treasury may fairly estimate an amount.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURIn order to meet the Lord Advocate's plea as to the difficulty of entering in the Estimates a detailed statement of the fees paid to the several officers, that the sums received by each be shown in the credited accounts.
§ DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)I only rise to state in a single word the great satisfaction I feel 221 at the statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to the effect that there is a chance of a Bill being brought in to settle this question once for all, and to prevent Procurators Fiscal from taking private practice in the future. I have always supported the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) on this question on previous occasions, and I shall be glad to do so again. I am glad to hear that a Bill is likely to be brought in to effect this important alteration in the law.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (25.) £58,921, to complete the sum for Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)This is the only opportunity we shall have of calling attention to the administration of justice in the Western Highlands of Scotland, and I am sure if some of my Friends who represent that district had been present to-night they would have been able to bring the matter more strongly before the Committee than I am in a position to do. I wish specially to direct the attention of the Committee to a complaint made against Sheriff Ivory last year. Formal complaints were made—detailed statements—with respect to his conduct at the Post Office in Portree, and his demand to the officials for the disclosure of the contents of telegrams. Scotch Members who have taken a particular interest in this matter have never been satisfied that there has been any real investigation into the complaints made. Those complaints were made on affidavits, sworn by respectable householders—by persons who were, to some extent at least, witnesses of the conduct of the Sheriff. Great indignation was expressed in the district and in other parts of Scotland at the conduct of the Sheriff in having endeavoured, as it was alleged he had endeavoured, to intimidate the Post Office officials into giving him the information he desired. The Crown has dealt, I believe, with one official in Portree in a very summary manner. I am not going, at present, to find fault with the authorities for the dismissal of that person. His dismissal may or may not have been justified; but I think we are entitled to ask that justice should be meted out to the supe- 222 rior as to the inferior officials, and I ask the Lord Advocate to be informed, as we have a right to be informed, whether there was a special investigation into the allegations made against Sheriff Ivory, and if so to state to the Committee the result of that investigation? If otherwise, I shall feel it my duty to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the salary of Sheriff Ivory.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,This matter was mentioned on a previous occasion. It so happened the occasion was one of the very few occasions, after I left Office last year, on which I was not in the House. I was, however, in the House when the Vote for Law and Justice was taken, so as to be ready to make any answer that might be required of me in regard to any matter affecting the administration of law during the time that we held Office. On that occasion—I think in the end of June or in the beginning of August of last year—the Vote passed without any observation whatever or without any question whatever being raised in regard to the conduct of Sheriff Ivory. This question is a somewhat old one, though I do not complain of that; I only wish to impress upon hon. Members that when the Vote for Law and Justice was brought forward last year I was sitting in my place ready to give any explanation in regard to it, although we had then left Office. Now, if I were to go into the entire history of what has taken place in the Island of Skye during the last two or three years, I am afraid I should take up far too much of the time of the Committee. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) confines his inquiry to what occurred in connection with the Post Office. In order to make the matter thoroughly intelligible, it would be necessary, if I were to go fully into the matter, to make reference to the condition of the Island at the time, and to the many very difficult and delicate duties it fell to the lot of the Sheriff to discharge—duties more difficult and more delicate, I think, than it has ever become the duty of a Sheriff in our time to discharge, and to which Sheriff Ivory devoted a great deal of time and anxious attention and consideration. But as the hon. Gentleman has limited his complaint to the proceedings at the Post 223 Office, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that Sheriff Ivory gave at the time a very full statement as to what occurred, and, without wearying the Committee, I may simply say that he had been down in the Island of Skye completing an investigation of a very delicate character, having relation chiefly, although not exclusively, to the case of the gentleman to whom my hon. Friend referred, who had been the Sheriff's clerk of the place. In the course of the investigation, Sheriff Ivory found that one of the servants of a Public Department had been made use of to convey telegrams and communications to persons in various parts of the Island, advising them to resist the officers of the law. On the Monday morning, before coming away, the Sheriff did go into the Post Office, and asked the Postmaster there whether he had received any communication directing him not to take part in the kind of proceedings it was alleged he had taken part in. There had already been a good deal of previous investigation into the conduct of that particular Postmaster, and, under these circumstances, the Sheriff did go to the Post Office to inquire whether any communication had been received by the Postmaster from his immediate and direct superiors in respect to matters which had been previously the subject of investigation. So far as my information goes, there was nothing in the actions of the Sheriff which could be characterized as intimidation. Certainly, the Sheriff did feel it his duty to point out to the Postmaster that the conduct of which he was charged with being guilty might lead to investigation. It was said that there had been a violation of the Post Office Regulations, and in respect to that I ought to explain that the state of the Post Office at that place had been such that the Surveyor General supplied the Sheriff with a private telegraphic clerk. There is no doubt that the Sheriff did go into what is called the instrument room. Had he not done so he would have been obliged to make his inquiry in the open shop—a small shop which served as the Post Office—which was hardly the kind of place to conduct the investigation with which he was charged. It certainly did not appear to me originally, and it does not appear to me now, that there is any ground whatever for the complaint made with regard to 224 the action of the Sheriff upon the occasion in question.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardine)I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) will not think it necessary to go to a division. What has taken place will, it is to be trusted, serve as a lesson to all public servants not to meddle with the Post Office. I rose, however, to call attention, as I have done on previous occasions, to the largeness of the judicial establishment which is kept up, not only in Scotland, but in England and Ireland. It has always appeared to me that the establishments are much larger than the population or the work justifies, and I am sure the country would be pleased to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) that steps would be taken to insure economy in this direction. Then, again, there is an item here to defray the expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Why do not they bear their own expenses; surely they are quite capable of doing so? There is, too, another charge in this Vote which I have often mentioned; it is that of £900 for the drafting of Bills to be introduced in Parliament. I never could make out how this £900 was made up. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) will be able to afford us some information upon the point?
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)I should like to know whether any independent investigation was made into the truth of the charges preferred against Sheriff Ivory, or whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate simply asked the Sheriff for an explanation of the action he took? I think the public are entitled to have some independent examination, altogether apart from Sheriff Ivory's own statement. I wish to know whether the Sheriff denied absolutely that he had asked the telegraph clerk and the postmaster for information respecting the telegrams which had been sent out of the office? That is the point in respect to which I wish to have definite information from the Lord Advocate. I do not desire to press the case unduly against Sheriff Ivory. I am aware he was placed in a very difficult and trying position; but the public ought to be satisfied that the same 225 supervision is exercised over Sheriffs in the discharge of their duties as is exercised over minor officials.
§ MR. J. B. BALFOURCertainly there was no separate investigation, and I do not think the circumstances of the case called for one. Some of the persons who were interested were subjected to investigation and inquiry; but I certainly think there was nothing whatever to justify Sheriff Ivory, a judicial officer, being, so to speak, put on his trial. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) has asked for an explanation in regard to an item of £900 which appears in this Vote. It is a sum which may or may not be used, but which is put annually at the disposal of the Lord Advocate in the matter of drafting Bills. Most of the Scottish Bills are drafted by the Lord Advocate's legal secretary. Sometimes, however, the assistance of other persons is obtained. I do not think that while I have been in Office the sum has ever been exhausted. I recollect that once, when, in regard to very important measures, there was a very great deal of labour by persons not connected with the official staff, and all awards were made out of this sum. As far as I recollect, about 500 guineas of this sum has been appropriated by my Department. But that has not been for the drafting of Bills only, but for going over a very large number of Bills which may or may not affect Scotland, for making amendments in a great many Bills, and for reporting upon a large number of others. But, as I have said, although the sum appears in the Vote, it does not necessarily follow that it is expended. I believe the sum appropriated towards the drafting of Scottish Bills is relatively very much less than the sum appropriated for drafting either English or Irish Bills. Instead of having a regular staff of draftsmen it has been the custom for the Lord Advocate's private secretary to do whatever drafting is required. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir George Balfour) concerning the expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, I may say that the system observed is that the Commissioners pay into the Treasury the gross sums they receive from the Royal domains, and that then the Treasury pay out the expenses incurred. It is thought 226 that this is preferable to allowing the Commissioners to deduct their expenses, and to pay into the Treasury only the net sum. There was a time when it was thought—I do not say without some ground—that there was something very like meddlesomeness in the administration of the Department; but I think those familiar with the details of the Department will know that it is not so now, and that there has been an endeavour for some time to compound some of the claims made, and to reduce the cost of management.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURAs the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has said that the sum paid into the Treasury by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests is the gross and not the net sum, I will ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state what the net sum is?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER) (Wolverhampton, E.)My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has correctly stated the case. It is most unsound to allow any Department to deduct their expenses from the receipts. The rule of the Treasury is that the gross receipts shall come in. If the Commissioners were allowed to deduct their expenses we should have no control over them.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)It is well the Committee should be able to exercise some control over the expenditure by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will inform the Committee in what kind of prosecutions this money has been expended. I know that several very poor but deserving men in my own constituency have been treated very hardly by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests in respect to unexhausted teinds. These men had taken up pieces of moor land, and had reclaimed them. The Crown allowed their claim to remain dormant for 200 years, or nearly so, and then came down upon these feuars, claiming one-fifth of the annual value of the land for teinds. The action of the Crown was manifestly absurd and unjust. The men were labouring men with very scanty means; but, nevertheless, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests prosecuted them for the payment of teinds—not only for existing teinds, but for teinds in arrear. I should like 227 to know whether any part of this expenditure was incurred in carrying on those prosecutions? Moreover, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests refused to compound these cases for any smaller number of years' purchase than the cases in which the claim of the Crown had been known all along. These were felt to be very hard cases; and perhaps the Lord Advocate will be able to say whether any of this money has been spent in respect of them.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,I am unable to say whether any part of this money was applied to the particular cases my hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay) referred to, for I did not hear the hon. Gentleman mention the name of the place in which the cases occurred. [MR. J. W. BARCLAY: Little Brechin.] Hardship is, no doubt, sometimes done in the prosecution of these claims. It is a very painful duty on the part of those who represent the Crown to prefer such claims; but it is obvious to the Committee that it would not do to allow the Crown, which in this matter means the public, to suffer by any oversight of its officers. The Department has every disposition to settle the claims. [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY: I hold the contrary.] I must repeat that at the present time there is every disposition to settle matters as well as they can be reasonably settled, with due and fair regard to the interests of the Crown, which are, as I have said, the interests of the public.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (26.) £30,862, to complete the sum for the Register House Department, Edinburgh.
§ (27.) £147,037, to complete the sum for Police—Counties and Burghs, Scotland.
§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)Before this Vote is passed I should like to call the attention of the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) or the Secretary for Scotland to the increase in the cost of the Scotch Constabulary. The increase in the cost this year is £4,000, and the increase in the number of constables 52. It is very disappointing to find that notwithstanding the improvement in the morals and habits of the people of Scotland the number of constables is being continually increased. I should like the 228 Home Secretary, or the Secretary for Scotland, if the matter is within his control, to exercise a strict supervision over the number of constables employed and the cost of the Police Force. I had occasion recently to inquire into the circumstances of my own county, and I found that the expenditure had increased so much that the county benefited very little from the proportion which was paid by the Government. I have not the figures at command at the present moment; but, speaking from memory, I say that although the contribution by the Imperial Parliament has been increased within the last 10 years from one-quarter to one-half, the county I have the honour to represent has benefited extremely little, if any, by the increased subsidy. Now, I wish to press upon whoever is responsible the necessity for the exercise of very great vigilance and control over the increased cost of the police and over the increase of the number of men employed. The system which is in force requires an Inspector to go round and report upon the efficiency of the police. This system leads to increased expenditure. The Inspector naturally wishes to have the police in the highest state of efficiency; and he feels that the increased efficiency of the force, as he regards it, cannot be obtained without increased expenditure. An excuse for the increased expenditure is found in the fact that the Government pay one-half. This increased subsidy for the police is an alarming feature of our expenditure. It has increased not only the Imperial expenditure, but the local expenditure.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.) (Clackmannan,It may be taken for granted that the very important matter which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. W. Barclay) has referred to was by no means left out of view. Although the sum of £4,000, being the increase from £143,000, to £147,000, is not proportionately a very large increase, it must be kept in mind that the population and the wealth of Scotland are rapidly increasing. Even if there had been no particular reason for this increase, the fact that every year there are so many more persons to watch over might account for it. But I understand that this particular increase is due in part to the additional police of last year and this—the charges for these additions have only now become fully de- 229 veloped—and in part to the adoption of a higher scale of pay, but particularly to a certain heavy charge, £1,861, not of an annual character, in the cost of clothing of the City of Glasgow Police. Therefore, very nearly one-half of the whole figure is of a very exceptional character. I dare say not many hon. Members will dispute what my hon. Friend said with regard to the effect of the subsidies from the Public Exchequer. It is a matter of familiar knowledge to the Committee that the Prime Minister has, more than once, pointed out that the system of grants in aid from the central funds to local funds leads to extravagance of cost. The locality thought it had got so much to spend, and proceeded to spend it lightly, with the result that to the locality there is very little saving in the end. Accordingly it has been matter for consideration, and, no doubt, will become matter for consideration under any local government scheme, whether something else should not be substituted for a system which, according to experience, has proved to be rather delusive, and which has added to the general burdens.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardine)asked whether the sums so voted for certain branches of administrative details ought not to be placed in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER) (Wolverhampton, E.)Personally, I am of opinion that the Secretary for Scotland should have entire control of all matters relating to Scotland. At the present moment that is not so, in consequence of the manner in which the Act creating the Office of Secretary for Scotland was drawn up. There is a little friction between the Home Office and the Secretary for Scotland at the present moment; but that is just what might have been expected. Perhaps the best course for my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) to adopt would be to put a Question on the subject to the Home Secretary or to the First Lord of the Treasury.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (28.) £93,876, to complete the sum for Prisons, Scotland.
§ (29.) £8,559, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy, Ireland.
230§ (30.) £1,085, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court, Registry, Ireland.
§ (31.) £83,057, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Ireland.
§ (32.) £5,255, to complete the sum for the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
§ Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.