HC Deb 15 March 1894 vol 22 cc366-77

5. £25,000, Supplementary, Law Charges.

MR. HANBURY

said, he found under Sub-head B £14,000 for agents' fees-fees of counsel and fees and expenses of expert witnesses bulked together. He should like to know the amount paid to each class. He found that a sum of £6,200 was paid in fees and expenses to export witnesses in the cordite case. Two of the expert witnesses, Sir F. Abel and Mr. Dewar, were strongly interested in the case, and considering the amounts which the patent brought them in from foreign countries, he did not think it possible that any of this money could have gone to them. He was inclined to divide against Votes for expert witnesses altogether, because they were paid by one side or the other in a case; and he would certainly divide against this Vote unless he got a satisfactory explanation.

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

said, the Vote for Law Charges was always larger than it ought to be, and for the same reason the administration of the Criminal Law was poisoned at its source. With regard to prisoners brought before Magistrates in boroughs, there was no room for doubt or misgiving; but with regard to prisoners brought before Magistrates in rural districts, it was unfortunate that under the present system Magistrates' clerks had often a financial interest in having prisoners committed for trial. His experience was not very extensive in that respect, but he knew of one case at least in which a man was returned for trial without any legal ground, and though the Magistrates were inclined to discharge him, because of the influence of the Magistrates' clerk. This was no new complaint. He had brought it frequently before the House. The present Attorney General had admitted the evil and deplored it; the present Lord Chancellor when Solicitor General; the House had made the same admission; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury when Solicitor General also recognised the evil. He therefore thought this practice of committing innocent persons, or even guilty persons, when there was not sufficient evidence, simply because the Magistrates' clerk had a financial interest in the matter, ought to be carefully guarded against.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that with regard to the fees and expenses paid to expert witnesses, the Committee ought to be at least informed of the principle on which they were paid—whether according to the amount of knowledge they possessed or otherwise. He should like to point out that this increase in the expenditure represented 60 per cent. of an increase on the original amount. The original amount was £41,000, and now they were asked to vote £25,000 additional. He should say that it reflected no credit on those who prepared the original Estimate that they were not within 60 per cent. of the expenditure.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, he noticed that the original Estimate for the expenses of the intervention of the Queen's Proctor in divorce cases was £4,000, and that the Committee were now asked for an addi- tional Vote of £2,000. He was aware that by the existing law if the two parties concerned wanted a divorce and got up a case against one of the parties and a decree was pronounced, if it were afterwards discovered that both parties wanted the divorce, no divorce would be granted. He thought that a most absurd law. It seemed to him that if two persons wanted to be married let them be married, and if two persons wanted to be divorced, let them be divorced. Why should we spend this £6,000 per annum in trying to find out whether the two parties in a divorce wanted the divorce, and if they did, reuniting them again in holy wedlock? He knew it was the law; but he objected to an expenditure of £6,000 a year in carrying out a ridiculous law, and a harsh and unwise law.

MR. HANBURY

said, he should like to ask whether, as a matter of fact, the Crown did not win the cordite case, and whether, therefore, this £6,000 for expert witnesses did not represent the entire of the amount paid to them, as the ordinary expenses were paid by the losing side?

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)

asked when Parliament would get a distinct statement as to the amounts received by the Law Officers of the Crown under the new arrangement? There was considerable anxiety on that point both inside and outside the House. He did not begrudge the hon. and learned Gentleman the full benefit of the arrangement between himself and the State. The hon. and learned Gentleman was entitled to take the full benefit of it, but he (Mr. Williams) was anxious to know the net result of the arrangement and when it would be made known to Parliament.

* SIR C. RUSSELL

said that, in answer to the hon. Member for Preston, he desired to say that a short time ago an exact statement was made as to the amounts received by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General respectively, and further particulars would appear in the Appropriation Account; but the remuneration of the Law Officers did not arise in a direct sense upon this Vote. It was quite true there was a considerable increase in the Vote, but the increase was nothing like the 60 per cent. which had been referred to. According to a statement furnished to him by the Treasury the Estimate was based upon the average of the expenditure for the previous three years, and in this period there had been a number of important criminal prosecutions of long duration and involving great expense. Amongst them were the Hansard prosecution, the Portsea Island prosecution, cases arising out of the Liberator frauds, and some other important prosecutions. As regarded these proceedings, he was not able to give the hon. Member for Preston a division between the costs of agents and fees to counsel. In regard to the costs for expert witnesses under Sub-head C, the hon. Member was under a misapprehension as to the cordite case. The amount stated was a total which would be reduced by the sum to be received from the unsuccessful litigants when the costs were taxed if the decision stood.

MR. HANBURY

This amount is the total?

* SIR C. RUSSELL

Yes. He would remind the hon. Member that the amount represented not merely the amount of remuneration for witnesses for 12 days' attendance, but also for examination and research and experiments long before the trial itself came on. He agreed that expert witnesses were an expensive luxury. These witnesses had included some most eminent men. There was Sir F. Bramwell, Sir Andrew Nobel, Dr. Armstrong, and others, whoso evidence was considered by the advisers of the Crown necessary for the purposes of the trial. As to whether Sir F. Abel and Professor Dewar were on the list of paid expert witnesses, he could not say, but he believed they were. He saw no reason why they should not be. They had no interest in the matter, and they were entitled to be paid properly. He was told that as yet they had made no claim. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the Law of Divorce, no doubt if the law were as the hon. Member wished it to be, the interventions of the Queen's Proctor would be less frequent; but under the law as it stood, if the Queen's Proctor received information that a divorce had been obtained by collusion, or by a suppression of material matters that ought to have been brought before the Court, it was his duty to submit the facts to the Law Officers of the day, and to see that the attention of the Court was drawn to them. He agreed with the hon. Member for Donegal that it was in the highest degree unsatisfactory that clerks to Magistrates should be interested in prosecutions, but the matter did not come directly under this Vote.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had questioned the accuracy of his statement as to there being an increase of 60 per cent. in the Vote——

SIR C. RUSSELL (interrupting)

I withdraw that.

* SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, it was important the House should clearly understand the position of the matter with respect to the cordite action. It was absolutely essential to call a very considerable number of expert witnesses—some 10 or 12. With respect to the position of Sir Frederick Abel and Professor Dewar, he did not know whether they had made any claim for remuneration, but he would point out that Her Majesty's Government had no claim upon them except from the fact that they had been members of the Explosives Committee which sat in 1889 or 1890, and the question as to whether or not the Government had infringed Nobel's patent in the matter of cordite referred to 1891 and the succeeding years down to the present time. Sir Frederick Abel had ceased for some years to be in the service of the Government, and was now in the honoured position of Secretary to the Imperial Institute, and Professor Dewar had never been in the service of the Government, except that the had from time to time been consulted by them. He was a Professor of the University of Cambridge and of the Royal Institution. If these gentlemen made a legitimate charge for their services he did not see on what ground it could be disputed. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Donegal as to Magistrates' clerks being interested at times in the prosecution of persons who might be tried before the Magistrates, the subject had been considered by successive Law Officers and Governments, and although no one could deny that it was desirable that the same rule should apply in the case of clerks to County Magistrates as those which applied in the case of Borough Magistrates—namely, that they should not be concerned, directly or indirectly, through partners or otherwise, in cases winch came before the Bench with which they were connected, still it was found that there were many practical difficulties in the way of a change, difficulties which did not appear at first sight, and which would make it doubtful whether a change would be in the public interest. In the remoter parts of England and Wales it would be impossible to obtain competent legal advice—and the Magistrates had to rely in many cases upon the guidance of their clerks—if the proposed change were effected. Wishing the change to be made, yet it was impossible to make it, having due regard to the efficiency of the administration of public justice. It would involve great expense, it could not be effected without legislation, and it would certainly be of a very doubtful character. Before any alteration were made the whole subject should be carefully considered.

DR. CLARK

said, he would not oppose the Vote, because he understood that no claim had been made by Sir F. Abel and Professor Dewar——

SIR C. RUSSELL

I said that up to the present time no claim had been made.

DR. CLARK

said, that when they did make a claim he would divide the House against the payment. As a matter of fact, the Government in the cordite case had been fighting in the interests of these two gentlemen. These gentlemen—-who, by the way, had been on the Explosives Committee, and had availed themselves of the information they had obtained as such—had really been defending themselves. If the Government had been unsuccessful their patents would have gone, not only in this country, but abroad, and they would have lost all their royalties.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peter borough)

said, they ought not in any way either to sanction the conduct of these two gentlemen, or pay public money to them. He therefore agreed with the hon. Member (Dr. Clark) that this matter must be watched. He did not think the conduct of these gentlemen was what it ought to be. The information printed in the Papers with reference to these matters was insufficient to allow the Vote to be properly discussed. There was a 60 per cent. increase on the £41,000 mentioned in the original Estimate for these three items, and there could be no doubt about the fact that the law expenses of the country, not only in these but in other Departments, were continually increasing. The fact was, that the fees paid to barristers by the Government were much too high. The work could be done just as well if the Government employed ordinary barristers instead of confining their briefs to a few distinguished counsel and paying them very large fees. The Government in this matter set a bad example to the country, the result being that law expenses were always heavy. He trusted that the present Radical Government would see if they could not in the future bring about a reduction in these items instead of an increase. He was willing to give the Attorney General a little more rope, but the time would come when the democracy of the country would say that they would not have the taxes wasted in the manner in which they were being wasted at present.

Vote agreed to.

6. £10, Supplementary County Courts.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, this was not merely a question of £10. That was the way it was put in the Vote, and he had always objected to that method of dealing with it The real expenditure was over £400,000. He must object to the Vote, because he believed the County Court business to be badly managed by the Government. In the City of London they were not particularly fond of economy; but they managed their County Court business in such a way that, though they paid higher salaries than the Government, they made a profit, whereas the Government made a loss. Surely the Government should be able to manage the County Courts as well as a Municipality. If they handed them over to the Municipalities a saving might be effected. He desired to know why there was an increase of £200 in the item for the conveyance of persons to prison? He did not think there ought to be any conveyance to prison at all in connection with debt.

SIR C. RUSSELL

said, that if the City made a profit out of County Court business it was at the expense of suitors.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, the charges to suitors in the City wore the same as ill other parts of the country.

SIR C. RUSSELL

said, the charges in connection with County Courts Were not in the discretion of the Government, but were fixed by Act of Parliament; and as to the increase in the charge for the conveyance of prisoners, he presumed that it was in consequence of there having been more prisoners to convey.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he had said nothing about fees. It was the expenditure, not the receipts, he was talking about. The fees were the same in the City of London as elsewhere.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, the real sum in question was hear £500,000. The Comptroller and Auditor General had already brought before the attention of the House on his Report, of the l0th January the fact that in many Services for which they were called on to vote the sum put down in the Estimates was a perfectly illusory sum—that, as a matter of fact, the sum voted bore no relation whatever to the amount expended, and that as a consequence the amount expended was entirely withdrawn from the cognisance of the House. Under the pretext of voting £10 they were really dealing with a sum of £427,000, though they had no control over the expenditure whatever. What did it represent? Why, salaries, printing, stationery, registrars, postage, conveyance, incidental expenses, and so forth, of the County Courts—Courts which, he ventured to think, were the most important of all the Courts in the country, for they were the poor man's Courts. They were very subject indeed to abuse. The Registrars were liable to overcharge and make little arrangements—to adopt tricks and devices whereby when payments were made they were considered not to be formal or in order, the fees being allowed to run on. Many a poor man was subjected to serious oppression in consequence of charges of this kind. It seemed to him that of almost all the cases of abuse brought before them this was the last they should allow to pass without protest. The Comptroller and Auditor General had called attention to these sums that were withdrawn from the cognisance of the House. He (Mr. Bowles) himself had appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put into the Appropriation Account £8,000,000 of which this £400,000 was part, and really they ought to have a promise of an improved practice in the future in regard to this money. Votes of this kind turned the financial proceedings of the House into a farce. He should like to hear what there was to be said in defence of this monstrous and even wicked system of dealing with the expenditure of the country.

SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said, he wished to say a word not so much on the Estimate as on the statement the hon. Member for King's Lynn had just made, which was a matter of serious moment. He understood the hon. Member to say that the Registrars of County Courts made overcharges and were guilty of abuses and dishonourable conduct in their office.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he must have explained himself in an unfortunate manner. What he meant to say was that the Registrars were only human beings, and were consequently liable to make overcharges. He thought it extremely likely that they did make overcharges, inasmuch as they were withdrawn from the cognisance of the House.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

said that, having been a Registrar himself, he thought it extremely unlikely that they would do anything of the kind. The Registrars were admitted solicitors, and if they were guilty of the practices suggested by the hon. Member they would be struck off the Roll, and would richly deserve all they got. Their accounts were audited periodically, and if they were persons likely to do these things—which they were not—they assuredly would not have the opportunity. He could not accept the hypothetical way in which the statement was made. It, had reference to a body of men who had charge of large funds; and if there was a suspicion of their being justly open to a charge of such an abuse of their position as the hon. Member suggested, it would be a standing danger to the administration of justice. The statement of the hon. Member was absolutely incredible, and the second statement, he ventured to think, ought never to have been made without citing cases in its justification.

* SIR J. T. HIBBERT

was understood to say it was quite impossible for what the hon. Member for King's Lynn had mentioned to have happened in reference to charging fees. It was quite impossible for any County Court officials or other persons to have taken such advantage. All the fees were on a certain fixed scale—accessible to everybody. In the original Vote there was full opportunity of revising every halfpenny of the expenditure under this head. Then the amount received was almost equal to the amount expended. The Supplementary Estimate had been rendered necessary because the number of plaints presented during the past year had exceeded expectation, and the salaries of the Registrars varied with the number of the plaints received. The system was thoroughly workable; and though the hon. Member had pointed to him as the culprit, he was not afraid to stand up before the House and defend it. The whole matter, of course, was open to criticism when brought forward before the House of Commons; but he ventured to say that the whole system which had now been in force for many years was advantageous to the public, and that the fullest means of information was open to everyone who applied for it.

SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)

said, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman approved of the system of placing these Estimates before Parliament. A few years ago the late Government was attacked by a Member of the present Government for adopting that very system of appropriation which the right hon. Gentleman now told them worked so admirably.

MAJOR RASCH

said, that he had received complaints from his constituents as to the extraordinary charges forced upon them. He would not say that they in particular were treated unfairly, but he thought his hon. Friend's experience was the exception which proved the rule. People were under the impression that this was done because it was thought they had no friends in the matter and that there was no remedy.

* SIR C. RUSSELL

pointed out that it was the hon. Member's duty to bring forward any cases of the kind which he could authenticate in order that they might be thoroughly investigated.

MR. HANBURY

said, this matter was well worth the consideration of the House. He urged that the system of appropriations-in-aid should not be carried further until the question had come before the Public Accounts Committee. The Auditor and Comptroller General in his Report called attention to the fact that the division of the Votes into subheads had no effect, the appropriation of the money voted being governed by the Appropriation Bill. Care should be taken that the system was not extended, for the Auditor and Comptroller General was much afraid that it would extend to the whole of the Civil Service Estimates.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

There is no fear of that.

MR. HANBURY

would make another suggestion. As the Auditor and Comptroller General did not assign the appropriations-in-aid to the different purposes for which they were voted, it was possible to transfer Votes for one purpose to another without even the Treasury being consulted. That ought to be checked, and the Auditor and Comptroller General suggested a remedy. In dealing with Departments for which only a nominal sum was voted, though large sums were actually spent, the Appropriation Bill ought to assign the money voted to the various heads on which it was to be spent, thus supplying the defects of the Estimates. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would promise to follow the recommendation of the Auditor and Comptroller General at once in the next Appropriation Bill.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

said, he would take the matter into consideration, but he could not promise that the plan suggested would be adopted in the next Appropriation Bill.

SIR J. GORST

said, that it was a mistake to suppose that the Auditor and Comptroller General had censured the present practice. He simply pointed out that it would be desirable to have Parliamentary sanction—which he could not find—for the present excellent system of appropriation.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

did not see how sanction could have been given, because this was the first year in which it had been done. The Auditor and Comptroller General said in his Report that under the power conferred by the second section of the Act the practice of paying receipts hitherto appropriated as payments in aid had this year been extended to 39 of the Votes. It was upon that extension that he based his suggestion that it would be more proper to make the appropriation. They were dealing now not with strict appropriations but with appropriations in aid; and the result had been that £8,000,000 had been appropriated not under the Appropriation Act at all, but by Treasury Minute, which it should not be. It was impossible to read the Report of the Auditor and Controller General without seeing that he censured that practice.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he had always opposed this system as a bad way of dealing with the accounts, and the last Government when in Office always objected to this system of appropriation. He should certainly expect the support of Her Majesty's Government in objecting to it.

DR. CLARK

knew from experience that the Edinburgh Office more than paid its cost in stamps and was a gain instead of a loss. On the other hand, in the case of these County Courts they were losing money. What should be done was to put in appropriations-in-aid, if necessary for all of them. While in one case the fees came to much less than the cost, in another considerable profit was made.

SIR J. GORST

said, the practice had been going on for many years past. It originated in a suggestion of the Auditor and Comptroller General that the Civil Service Estimates should be gradually and steadily approximated to those of the Army and Navy. Since that time these exchanges, by turning receipts into ap-propriations-in-aid, had been steadily progressing in regard to the Civil Service Estimates being applied to fresh items from year to year. All that the Auditor and Comptroller General said was that it was necessary the matter should bo examined into by Parliament, but the practice should be continued under the sanction of the House.

Vote agreed to.

7. £1,300, Supplementary Register House, Edinburgh, agreed to.

Forward to