HC Deb 11 August 1887 vol 319 cc120-38

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £53,681, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st of March 1888, for the Salaries of the Law Officers; the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Queen's Proctor for Divorce Interventions, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Costs of Prosecutions, including those relating to the Coin, and to Bankruptcy, and of other Legal Proceedings conducted by those Departments; and various other Legal Expenses, including Statute Law Revision, and Parliamentary Agency.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

I think it will be convenient, in the few remarks with which I shall have to trouble the Committee on this Vote, that I should confine myself to the salary which the country pays to the Attorney General, because if we can reduce the salary of that officer it is quite clear that a reduction of the salary of the Solicitor General will follow. I hope my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General will understand that, in moving this reduction of his salary, I desire to keep clear altogether of any personal questions. I admit that it is somewhat invidious to have to move the reduction of a personal Vote, but that is the only way in which this question can be raised, and I feel sure the Committee will understand that in doing so I make no complaint against the present holder of the Office of Attorney General. I am sure we all recognize the great ability with which both the Attorney General and Solicitor General carry out their duties in this House. We have to consider the general question whether we are paying our Law Officers too high salaries. If we can reduce the present Vote, although unquestionably none of us would wish the reduction to apply to the present Law Officers of the Crown, we do desire that it should apply to future appointments; and, perhaps, it will not be long before there is another appointment to this Office, because the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) has stated that he intends to join the Government in the course of the autumn, and that would probably result in a change. I do not believe the country fully realizes the amount which we pay to the Law Officers of the Crown. On. page 198 it appears that we pay the Attorney General for non-contontious business £7,000, and the Solicitor General £6,000 a-year; in addition to that we pay them for what work they do outside their chambers on the average £3,000 to the Attorney General and £2,000 to the Solicitor General, so that the aggregate of our payments to these two Officers is no less than £10,000 for the Attorney General and £8,000 for the Solicitor General. Now, I have no quarrel with the amount which we pay to the Attorney General for what is called contentious business. I see from the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1877 that contentious business is defined to mean briefs in actions or other proceedings, civil or criminal, and consultations upon those briefs, as well as other business of that sort. Those consultations, I understand, we pay for at the market value, and accordingly we get good value for the money which we pay; but when it comes to paying £7,000 a-year for what is called non- contentious business, then I think we ought to reduce that sum to a more reasonable amount. The Secretary to the Treasury informed us that the opinion of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General was taken in 385 non-contentious cases in 1884; in 405 non-contentious cases in 1885, and 360 non-contentious cases in 1886, and, in addition to those, there were certain other consultations in connection with patents. But I notice that evidence was given before the Committee of 1887 that the amount of work required in connection with the Patent Office is very small indeed, and consists mainly in the Law Officers signing their names from time to time, it being seldom that any legal questions arise in connection with their duties as Law Officers of the Crown. Therefore, for the assistance given to the Government we pay a total sum of £13,000 a-year to the Attorney General and Solicitor General. Nor is that all. Probably the Committee is not aware that we do not by this large payment obtain the whole of the time and full services of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General; they are allowed to take as much private practice as time permits them, and I believe that in every case the private business is considerable. Of course, we all know they receive the honour of Knighthood; but that I will throw in. Then, again, the Attorney General is almost certain of obtaining the post of Lord Chancellor, and at any moment, if he wishes, he can always have a Judgeship. Therefore, we must take these matters into account as a decided advantage, which ought to be calculated at a considerable sum. I ask whether the Government can give any reason why we should pay the Attorney General twice the amount which we pay to the Prime Minister? I am sure that the Attorney General, being a very modest man, would not say that he is equal to two Prime Ministers; but if we estimate it in money, the amount he receives is double that which we pay to the Prime Minister or any Secretary of State. There is, as far as I can judge, only one reason advanced for paying our Law Officers such very high salaries—namely, that if we reduce the amount we should not get the best men, but have to put up with inferior lawyers. I do not myself believe that this could be so, because, even on the proposal I am going to make, the Attorney General would still receive £8,000 a-year, in addition to the advantages I have referred to. But I do not believe that the Attorney Generalship is looked at from a money point of view. I believe it is looked upon as a great honour—as the blue ribbon of the Bar—and, therefore, I cannot believe that anyone will seriously argue that the Attorney Generalship, with the honour which attaches to that position, and the work with which it is connected, would be refused by the best men at the Bar. We shall be told, probably, that we have made a bargain with our Law Officers under the arrangement of 1871, when the fees were commuted, and that it would not be fair to alter that arrangement. I ask whether that bargain was made with the occupants of the Office, or with the Bar as a whole? If it refers to present occupants, I cannot admit that the Law Officers of the Crown have any vested right in the Office, or any right to say that the salaries shall not be reduced, more especially as their Successors would probably be gentlemen opposed to them in political opinions. I cannot see, either, that we have made any bargain with the Bar that these salaries should not be reduced if the country so wishes. I think everyone will admit that the House of Commons may abolish either of these Offices; and surely, if they are entitled to abolish them, how much more are they entitled to reduce the salaries? Mr. Robert Lowe, in 1871, by a mere stroke of the pen, reduced the salary of the Attorney General, for non-contentious business, from £11,000 to £7,000, and that of the Solicitor General by about £3,000 or £4,000. If that could be done by Mr. Robert Lowe, surely, if the House of Commons desires, they can go still further in the same direction. I hope the Attorney General, if he endeavours to convince the Committee that these high salaries ought to be paid, will have better arguments to use than that the best men at the Bar will not accept £8,000 a-year, with other emoluments, and the honour attached to the Office, and that we have made a bargain which we cannot break. We have reduced this Vote before, and I cannot see any reason why we should not try to reduce it further. I think the proposal which I make is a moderate one; it is to reduce the fixed salary of the Attorney General to the amount we pay to Secretaries of State; and I trust it will be accepted by the Committee. I place it at that amount, not because I think it ought not to be further reduced, but because it seems to me a good line to take that we should not pay the Attorney General a higher salary for non-contentious business than we pay to the highest officers of State.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Item A, Salaries, be reduced by the sum of £4,000, viz., in respect of the Salaries of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General."— (Mr. Sydney Buxton.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

I am quite sure that no one will suppose it is from any personal motives that the hon. Gentleman opposite has moved the reduction of this Vote. The hon. Member is good enough to say that this reduction shall not apply to the present Law Officers, and I may state that both the Solicitor General and I approach this question quite apart from all personal considerations. The hon. Member has expressed the opinion that the salary of each of the Law Officers should be reduced to the level of that of the Prime Minister or of a principal Secretary of State. If the circumstances of the appointment of the Prime Minister or a Secretary of State were identical or parallel with those of the appointments of the Law Officers of the Crown I should agree entirely with his observations. I should like to say here, however, that I by no means think that the Prime Minister is paid a sufficient sum. It is not for the reason of enhancing the services of the Law Officers that I say that; it is because I think we do not proceed on a proper scale, and I hope some day or other that the country will be rich enough and liberal enough to pay the Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State larger salaries. But the circumstances under which the Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State are appointed differ in most essential particulars from the circumstances under which the appointments of Attorney General and Solicitor General are made. I am not at all suggesting that some time or other it would not be desirable that the mode of payment to the Law Officers should be considered; but I must not by that observation be understood to mean that I think there can be any substantial saving to the country, because the position which the Law Officers occupy is a very peculiar one. In the first place, the Law Officers have no public clerks, no staff, no office or public department, and no records on which they can fall back. I think it is a great defect in the department of the Law Officers that there is no permanent staff, and if it were not for the good feeling which prevails between the successive holders of the Office, it would be utterly impossible for the duties of the Attorney General and Solicitor General to be satisfactorily performed. I can say for myself that when I, for the first time, came into the Office which I have now the honour of holding, if it had not been for the kindness and consideration of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), I must have spent two or three months before I could have even understood the business entrusted to me. The Committee will remember that when a Minister of State succeeds to his Office he finds his Department, with all its machinery, staff of clerks, and private secretaries to his hand. Do not let it be supposed that I consider the machinery and staff, at the disposal of the Minister of State too great; I only wish to point out that he steps into a ready made place, and has to do the work of his Department under the circumstances I have described. But the Law Officer, when he succeeds to his Office, as I have said, has no staff and no established records, and he has to rely for what he wants on the good feeling of his Predecessor. It follows from that that an Attorney General must in connection with his public business at once, not only pay his own clerks, but also gentlemen to do work similar to that performed by private secretaries in public offices, and I suppose there has never been a Law Officer who has properly done his work who has not paid a very considerable sum for clerks to assist in the mechanical work, and also to gentlemen who can assist him in the performance of public business. Therefore, when the hon. Member suggests that the Attorney General receives £7,000 a-year apart from contentious business, I can assure him that very considerable reductions have to be made for work to be done. I hope that some day, without the necessity of increasing the charge to the nation, the matter may be so adjusted that, while the nation obtains in a certain sense better value for its money, there may be a permanent staff ready to be handed over to the Law Officers. There was the same defect that I have alluded to in connection with the Office of the Lord Chancellor; but a change was made not long ago in the direction I have indicated, which has worked a great improvement. It must, therefore, be borne in mind that from this £7,000 a-year there is to be made a reduction of many hundreds of pounds, depending, of course, on the way in which the Attorney General or Solicitor General pays for the assistance that is absolutely necessary. In 1875 a Departmental Committee was appointed to consider this subject. On that Committee sat the late Master of the Rolls, Sir George Jessel, and other eminent men. They examined Sir Richard Baggallay, Sir John Karslake, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), and one or two others; and the point that was discussed before the Committee in no way arose with respect to any suggestion that there was over-payment, but in consequence of some friction which had arisen from the way in which the fees of the Law Officers had been paid. I do not know whether I am correct in that or not; but if hon. Members will refer they will find that the Report proceeded on the basis that the salary of the Law Officers was not an exceptional salary, and when the whole of the circumstances are considered I think that no one will come to the conclusion that it is excessive. The hon. Member says that the business of the Law Officers in connection with the Patent Office consists in only signing their names, and that there is no strain put upon them in this respect. The hon. Member in saying this is probably confusing the old practice with what is done at the present time. That was the case in the old days, when the Attorney General signed the odd numbers of patents, and the Solicitor General the even numbers; but it is very different now.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON

The evidence given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was that, as a rule, all that the Law Officers had to do was to sign their names.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was, for once in his life, not quite accurate, and he was certainly confusing the old mode with the work that has now to be done. That work consists of the Law Officers sitting two or three or a greater number of hours on some 30 days in the year, and hearing cases with reference to appeals. I do not say the work is of a very difficult character, but it is very important and highly responsible work. The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that a discussion took place in 1871 with reference to the emoluments of the Law Officers on the Motion of the late Mr. Fawcett, and that it was renewed on a subsequent occasion. I do not suppose anyone will deny that it is to the advantage of the State that these Offices should be filled by persons who are willing to make sacrifices for the honour of the Office which I fully recognize. It must not be supposed that these sacrifices are not made; and when I say this I am not speaking of my own case alone, for I am sure the same thing can be said of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney (Sir Charles Russell), and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James). Lawyers cannot accept the Offices without running serious risks with regard to their own private business. When this point was put to Sir John Karslake by the Committee, he said it would be a great misfortune if the Attorney General and the Solicitor General were not at the head of their profession; that it was most important that those who advised the Government and the House of Commons should be in touch with the general practice going on, and that they should be able to keep up their experience with the current legal practice, and not be merely guided by their former experience. If this Office is to be properly filled it must be by men who are willing to make considerable sacrifices. We know, as a rule, Law officers are not independent men, as Prime Ministers frequently are, but men who look to going back to their profession at a later day, and the consequence is that the State ought to make the position so remunerative that it should always command men who are fitted for the post. But I say again that my reason for resisting this Amendment is that I do not believe, having regard, to the work to be done, and having regard to the fact that the State does not supply a staff of clerks or any other assistance, that the salary is too high. I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member in support of this Motion to reduce the Vote; and although I do not in any way complain of what he has said, I do not think he has made out any case except on the point of comparison with the salaries of the Prime Minister and the principal Secretaries. I have pointed out that the sacrifices to be made by those who accept this Office are not inconsiderable; and I hope and believe that, as long as the duties shall be performed by those who hold the Office in future as well as they have been performed in the past, the country will be satisfied with the return it receives for the remuneration of its Law Officers, and unless something is done to relieve the Law Officers of the heavy charges on them for conducting their business, I think the House of Commons ought to be of opinion that the salaries are not too high.

MR. P. STANHOPE (Wednesbury)

Inasmuch as this is the sole occasion we shall have of raising this question, which is only an item in the greater subject of the general law costs of the State, I wish to make some observations in support of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Sydney Buxton). The Attorney General has given us a most judicious defence of this Office in the abstract, and I entirely acquit him of any personal feeling in resisting the Amendment for the reduction of the Vote. There was one statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman which struck me as being peculiar. My hon. Friend pointed out that the salary of the Attorney General was double that of the Prime Minister, and he replied that that was no doubt the case, at the same time giving it as his opinion that the salaries of the Prime Minister and the principal officers of State should be raised in amount to that of the salary of the Attorney General. In these democratic days I think the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman is hardly likely to commend itself to this House, and certainly not to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to show us that the salary and fees in his case did not represent absolutely the profit of the holders of the Office; that he had to pay a large clerical staff, and that he had also to obtain the assistance of properly qualified gentlemen, who, I believe, are popularly known as devils, and are extremely expensive. No doubt, that does, to a certain extent, diminish the value of the Office of Attorney General; but, in saying that, the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to miss the point of our attack. The hon. and learned Gentleman also argues that there is no permanent Office connected with the appointment. But I would remind the Committee that the eminent lawyer who occupies in France the position of Attorney General receives £1,200 a-year; and, again, that in America you have the Attorney General, a gentleman of high qualifications and learned in the fame English law, receiving $10,000 or £2,000 a-year. I ought to add that the Senate of the United States, in the exercise of its discretion, reduced this sum to$8,000, and I am not aware that the gentleman now occupying the position of Attorney General of the United States is in any way inferior to his predecessors. I can only say that we on these Benches, and other Members who are interested in the question, will feel it our duty to attack this and other exaggerated legal charges whenever the opportunity presents itself. We contend that the system is bad, that the legal expenditure of the Government is enormous, and that the particular case of the Attorney General is merely characteristic of the whole. The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of the market value of the best legal talent; but I venture to say that the exaggerated salaries which we pay to the Attorney General and Solicitor General are the cause of the high market value of those legal talents. We go, as an opulent Government, into the market, and our system is such that legal fees throughout the country are enormously increased. Any gentleman who has had a lawsuit will know that, having consulted his solicitor, the first thing is that the latter says that your opponent has retained the Attorney General. You shudder and feel that your last day is come, and then you are told that you must send a retainer to the ex- Attorney General, who is the only man able to cope with the Attorney General in Court. I say that this ridiculous competition has the effect of raising fees throughout the country, and that a great benefit would be felt on all hands if the Attorney General and Solicitor General were paid less money and were reduced in market value. The hon. and learned Gentleman laid great stress on the evidence taken before the Committee he has referred to; but I would point out that the constitution of that Committee was almost entirely legal. He quoted particularly the opinion of a very eminent man, of whom I desire to speak with great respect; but Sir John Karslake was a lawyer, and, unquestionably, we shall always hear from eminent lawyers the opinion that lawyers are not paid enough. I hope, at all events, although my hon. Friend and myself may not carry the Committee entirely with us, that the Amendment will be pressed to a Division, and that the result of the discussion will be to call public attention to these exaggerated charges, so that, in course of time, this Vote may be placed on a more moderate footing.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

As a member of the Bar, I rise to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Sydney Buxton) It is three years ago that I made myself a similar Motion, and drew attention to the excessive fees paid to members of the Legal Profession in this House. There is a mystery about the legal element here, which consists of those who have official positions, and those who hope to get them; those who have them support the present payment, and those who have them not, support it because they hope some day or other to get it themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the Attorney General has to go back to his Profession. I will tell the Committee what the position of an Attorney General is when he has to do that. In the first place, the Law Officers are selected because they are Members of this House, and because of their position at the Bar; naturally those whose positions are not good would not be chosen; the selection is made of men in the highest position. Now, what is the result on the practice of a barrister on becoming Attorney General or Solicitor General. The only result, as far as I can see, is that their clients have to pay double fees; and when once lawyers have doubled their fees they never reduce them. But, supposing that they go back to their Profession, their position at the Bar is not in the least degree injured. Surely the position of a man at the Bar is improved by the fact that he has been selected by the Government for the position of Attorney General or Solicitor General; so much therefore for the argument that the private practice of a lawyer is injured by holding either of these Offices. The hon. and learned Gentleman speaks of the sacrifice that men in his position have to make. What is the position of the Attorney General and Solicitor General? Why, they become the glory of the whole Profession, and all we who are juniors, and are running about to get bread and cheese, follow them, flatter them, and do all we can to obtain some little appointment—crumbs from the rich man's table in the shape of a prosecution or something of the sort. The position, I say, is one of glory as well as wealth. The Attorney General bids us look on the burdens he has to carry, and he says—" we have to give opinions during the Session and during vacation;" but I ask would not many barristers be only too glad to give opinions every day. I know that I would be glad to do so; but at the present moment I do not give more than one in three months, and then I am sorry to say that sometimes I do not get paid for it. And here again the position of an Attorney General is superior because he has clients who do not fail—they are men who pay—so that the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the burdens on the Office is one that falls to the ground. Then, again, the Attorney General looks to the Lord Chancellorship, and in nine cases out of ten gets it. It is the same with regard to the Irish Office; almost all the Attorney Generals and Solicitor Generals for Ireland who come into this House support the policy of their Party, and their whole aim is the Judicial Bench, where they are always to be found after they cease to be Members of this House. Now, on the ground that no barrister is injured in his Profession by accepting the high and dignified position of Attorney General or Solicitor General, and looking to the fact that it only tends to double his fees, I think that any appeal to us to support the enormous payment now made to the Law Officers is one that should not receive the assent of the Committee. When it is remembered that the work of the Prime Minister is paid for at the rate of about £5,000 a-year, and that he has not only to give an opinion once every day, but that the whole of the responsibility of the Government rests upon his shoulders I think we are entitled to say that this Vote ought to be reduced.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

If I understand my hon. Friend aright, he objects to the present remuneration of the Law Officers on two grounds — first, that the holders of the Office make no sacrifice; and, secondly, that they enjoy the advantage of getting double fees. I had not the pleasure of hearing the Attorney General's reply to the hon. Member for Poplar; but I am quite sure he did not put it to the Committee that barristers were placed at any disadvantage by accepting the position of Law Officer. I am surprised, however, at the statement of the hon. and learned Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy), that the Law Officers of the Crown receive double fees. It is certainly the first time I have ever heard that said.

MR. MOLLOY

I can give a case exactly in point of a barrister who, on acceptance of the Office, gave notice that he could not accept the old fees.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER

My hon. Friend seems to think there is some kind of compulsion in the payment of fees; but payment for the services of the Attorney General in no way differs from the purchase of other marketable commodities. I remind my hon. Friend in a very homely phrase that you cannot buy champagne at the price of small beer. I have no doubt there are numbers of gentlemen who would undertake the responsible post of Law Officer to the Crown for a much smaller consideration; but the country has to go into the legal market and buy the best article that can be obtained at the market price. Therefore, if there is a case to be made out by those who oppose this Vote, it must be shown that the Law Officers are receiving higher remuneration from the State than they would get in private practice. I am not going to tell secrets; but I happen to know something of the fees of some of those who have filled the position in question, and I can assure the hon. Member that it is not a rare thing for leading barristers in this country to make £10,000 a-year in fees. As long as there are people capable of paying high fees, I think you cannot be surprised if the Government of the day has to pay a correspondingly high price for its legal requirements. But to bring the discussion to a practical point. I very much doubt whether, when the State makes these payments to its Law Officer, it has not the right to require that he should devote the whole of his time to the work of the Office. The work of the Attorney General is increasing year by year and becoming more important. The rule now is one of constant attendance in this House. The Attorney General and Solicitor Qeneral are now compelled to be here during every debate; there is hardly a debate in the course of which some question does not arise on which the Government require to be guided by the Law Officers of the Crown; and I throw out the suggestion that the time has now arrived to consider whether the whole time of the Attorney General and Solicitor General should not be devoted to the service of the country. I cannot support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Poplar, because it is not shown that the fees paid to the Law Officers of the Crown are higher than they would receive in private practice.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 155: Majority 98.—(Div. List, No. 271.) [9.55 P.M.]

Original Question again proposed.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I do not want to move an Amendment, or to interpose for more than a minute before the Vote is taken. All I desire is that the Government should give us a little information upon the figures in reference to the "Solicitor, Queen's Proctor, and Director of Public Prosecutions." It will be seen that there is a Director of Public Prosecutions who, I presume, is the same person as the Queen's Proctor, and that he has a salary of £2,000 a-year. He has three assistant solicitors, one principal assistant, six assistants, and then a number of first-class and second-class clerks—two first-class and nine second-class clerks, besides five supplementary clerks. It appears to me that this staff is very largely in excess of the requirements of the establishment. We had presented to us the other day a Return showing the amount of work in connection with public prosecutions for criminal offences with which the Public Prosecutor has to do, and from my recollection of the figures given in that Return I can say that there is not nearly so much work in the way of prosecutions undertaken by the Public Prosecutor as to necessitate such an enormous staff as we have here. But admitting that all these clerks, and assistants, and solicitors, and so on are required, what I do not understand, from my examination of this Estimate, is why the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Queen's Proctor, who, as I say, I suppose are the same person, should have, in addition to these assistants and clerks, a sum of £700 in one case and £309 in another case, as appears on page 199, as allowances for clerks. The Queen's Proctor has an allowance for two clerks, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has an allowance of £309 for clerks. It appears to me that these charges ought to come under the charges on the previous page; I do not understand why there should be an additional sum set down afterwards in the Estimates for clerks generally. I just mention these points, and I shall be glad if some facts are given us by the Attorney General to prove that the duties of the Public Prosecutor, like those of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, are so exceedingly onerous that the provision made is not too great; but whether I am satisfied on that point or not, I should like to have an explanation of the additional payments to which I have drawn attention.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I desire also to draw the attention of the Committee to the charge of £1,000 for a solicitor to the Queen's Proctor and the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with the item of £25,500 a-year under Subhead B on account of criminal prosecutions. Now, Sir, in connection with the expenditure of this money there is a blot upon the criminal procedure of the country which is very little short of scandalous. I mean that in connection with the position of clerks at Petty Sessions in the rural districts of England. According to the Municipal Cor- perations Act of 1882, Section 159, justices for a borough have to appoint from time to time a fit person to be their clerk, to be removed at their pleasure, but the clerk to the justices shall not by himself or his partner or otherwise be directly or indirectly employed or interested in the prosecutions of any offender committed for trial by those justices, or any of them, at any Court, or gaol delivery, or Quarter Sessions. That is the rule with regard to the boroughs, but in regard to the rural districts no such rule obtains. You have this situation, that in the Petty Sessions throughout the country you find as magistrates' clerk a man who is a solicitor, who is the legal adviser, who is in reality the legal steam tug of the Bench, and who almost invariably sways the Bench in regard to any question of law.

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not see how the hon. Member connects his present observations with this Vote. There is nothing contained in the Vote for clerics to magistrates as far as I can make out.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I think I shall be able to show you, Sir, that my observations are distinctly relevant to the expenditure of £25,500 for criminal prosecutions, &c. The Solicitor and Queen's Proctor is the director of these public prosecutions, and I am speaking of the position of magistrates' clerks in connection with public prosecutions. The point I raise is admitted to be a serious blot upon the administration of justice. What is not allowed in the boroughs is allowed in the country districts, and the clerk to the magistrates, after having caused by his advice the committal of a prisoner, will often be entrusted personally with the prosecution of that prisoner, and the money which is distributed under this Vote goes in part to pay for the services of magistrates' clerks whoso duties conflict with their personal interest, and that is where the blot lies. I know that in one case on the Northern Circuit—I do not think it would be difficult to adduce other cases on other Circuits— the clerk to the magistrates, in collusion or by arrangement with the superintendent of police is, I am assured, secured in a considerable amount of business by reason of the committals which take place at the Court where the superintendent of police is allowed to act as prosecuting officer. The superintendent of police acts as advocate in the Court, and the men who are committed by that Bench are prosecuted to the professional benefit of the clerk to the Bench himself. Now when, some little time ago, there was a case of a young girl who was very seriously injured, a private prosecution was instituted; a private solicitor was instructed by the girl to take certain proceedings. The girl herself died, as was suggested, by foul play, and the mother of the girl then instructed the same solicitor to institute a prosecution. The superintendent of the police of the district went down and inquired into the case, and then he and the clerk to the magistrates arranged to secure a public prosecution. Now, in the Act which regulates the duty of the Public Prosecutor—that is to say, the 42 & 43 Vict. c. 22, s. 7, it is laid down that nothing in that Act shall interfere with the right of any person to institute, undertake, or carry on any criminal proceeding. In the case to which I have referred the private prosecutor was practically ousted out of the business altogether. A superintendent of police undertook as far as he could the duty of the Public Prosecutor, and the prosecution was in the hands of the clerk to the magistrates. I am assured that the Treasury Solicitor, that is to say, this very man for whom this £1,000 a-year is asked in this Vote, gets a commission on these transactions from the magistrates' clerks who act on agency terms. I want to ask the Attorney General or the Solicitor General if he can inform me whether any agency fees are now paid? I am credibly informed that the business of criminal prosecution is conducted on agency terms, and that the Treasury Solicitor to the Director of Public Prosecutions attains the commission upon the proceeds of the business. If that is so, I wish the Attorney General to say whether the commission so paid goes into the personal pocket of the Solicitor whose pay is asked for here, or whether it goes into the Exchequer? If it goes into the Exchequer, why is it not shown in the Vote? That is a query I address to the Attorney General; but the point to which I attach much more importance, the point to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Heary James), I know, at- taches considerable importance, is that which I first mentioned—namely, the fact that the duties and the interests of magistrates' clerks in rural districts conflict one with the other. It is certainly a very serious blot upon the administration of justice that you should have a man brought up in the first instance before one who practically decides whether the man shall be committed for trial or not, and who is himself interested in the committal of the prisoner. I trust the Attorney General will give the Committee some information upon the points I have raised.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

First of all, let me say a word or two in regard to the supposed allowance of commission with respect to any work which is undertaken on agency terms. As far as I know, there is no foundation whatever for that suggestion. The other matter referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) is one which does require consideration — namely, whether the clerks to magistrates in rural districts should not be subjected to the prohibition to which clerks to magistrates in boroughs are already subjected. I have had communication made to me on this point, and I have called the attention of the Home Secretary to the matter; and I have no doubt that it will be further considered. I have long been of opinion that some such similar restriction ought to be made. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), I think it is right to say that the whole question of this Office of Public Prosecutor is now under the consideration of a Committee. That Committee will inquire as to whether it is necessary that there should be so large a staff, and as to whether the work is being properly done As a matter of fact, the Treasury Solicitor acts for a great many Public Departments. I know he does a considerable amount of Treasury, and War Office, and Admiralty work, work which used to be done by independent solicitors at great cost. I do not think, therefore, that it will be found that the staff is capable of large reduction; but still the matter is now undergoing thorough examination by a strong Committee.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.