§
1. Motion made, and Question proposed:—
That a sum, not exceeding £5,263, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Land Registry.
§ SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)said there had already been a short Debate on the Vote before progress was last reported. The Land Registry as it existed had been exposed to a good deal of criticism for many years; and the criticism was natural, because the registry was so limited in its scope that it could hardly be said to be a living registry. The duties were well performed by the Gentlemen in charge of the office, but the registry did not yield to the country anything like the results that were to be expected for even the moderate expenditure. The hon. Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) had pointed out that the only way to make the registry useful was to carry out most necessary reforms, so that there might be an effective and proper system of land registry. The history of this business was remarkable. Lord Halsbury had twice or thrice brought in a Bill and passed it through the House of Lords. Lord Herschell had brought in a Bill of lesser scope in the hope of getting an instalment of what was necessary; but it had been defeated, largely by the action of well-meaning persons, solicitors —[laughter]—who had done everything they could, by putting pressure upon individual Members of the House, to induce them not to support it. In 1895 there was a Select Committee, of which he was Chairman, and he deprecated the 557 reappointment of that Committee, which was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Haddington. The Committee was appointed because the late Government, with not so large a majority as it deserved, was anxious to pass a Bill; and he made terms with the Incorporated Law Society that the opposition to the Second Reading should be withdrawn if a Select Committee were appointed to conclude its business by the middle of June. Every witness tendered by the Law Society was examined; and then came the fall of the Government. The evidence produced upon his mind an absolute and certain conviction that the proposed scheme was workable, that it might be cheap, and that it would be of more value to agriculture and to landowners than many other nostrums. It was a very old subject. Oliver Cromwell expressed a very strong opinion upon it. [Laughter.] There were Royal Commissions upon it in 1828, 1850, 1854, 1878, and Select Committees in 1846 (Lords), in 1878 (Commons), and in 1895 the Committee appointed under the pressure he had indicated. We had got quite enough information, and the time had come for action. In his opinion, nothing was more serious in this House than the practice of referring disputed questions to Select Committees or Royal Commissions, as a means of postponing the responsibility of arriving at a definite conclusion. We had pyramids of Blue-books, which were never read, which had been produced merely as a means of putting off the responsibility of coming to a decision to a more convenient season. ["Hear, hear!"] The time had come when the Government ought to do something to make this office useful, instead of leaving it practically useless. He had no reason to think the Government would shrink from the responsibility of coming to a decision. They had the opinions of Lords Cairns, Selborne, Halsbury, and Herschell. For himself, he held a strong opinion that we could carry out a scheme similar to that which had been in operation for so long in Australia. No doubt there were honest apprehensions and fears of any innovation on the part of lawyers; but if in the past we had waited for reforms until we had satisfied Her Majesty's judges, solicitors, and a 558 large portion of the Bar of the United Kingdom, we should never have got many of our most beneficial reforms. When men of eminence who had attained to a high position, in which they were free from temptation, expressed their deliberate opinions upon this matter, we ought to take the responsibility of acting on their high authority. There was no reason why it should not be as easy in this country as in Australia to effect the sale of a piece of land in 20 minutes, at a cost of a shilling or two, without bundles and rolls of filthy parchments. [Cheers] He hoped the matter would not be left to members of the Bar, who usually favoured legal reforms while lay members hardly ever took the trouble to support them. Country gentlemen and owners of land listened to their solicitors, and did not take any step to help themselves in a matter which was of vital importance. The First Lord of the Treasury, in reply to a question, had said that a Bill was ready, but he could not undertake to have it introduced this Session. Next Session we might hope to have a less ambitious and more useful programme, which he hoped would include a Land Registry Bill. [Cheers.]
§ SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)expressed his hope that something would be done before long to simplify the transfer of land. Pressure was always brought to bear upon hon. Members when matters of this kind were about to come under the consideration of the House, with the result that useful reforms in this direction were not carried into effect. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. R. B. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)said that he differed from the view taken by his hon. and learned Friend the member from Dumfries upon this question. He thought that the evidence that had been given before the Commissions which had sat to consider this subject was conclusively in favour of the principle of land registration, but that some of the evidence, notably that of Mr. Lake and the bankers, showed that the Bill required careful remodelling in parts of detail. For this purpose the re-appointment of the Committee was desirable.
§ SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire)explained that the reason why the Select Committee on Land Titles and Transfer (of which he was Chairman) had not recommended the registration of 559 Titles was that before they registered Titles they must have Titles which could be registered. To register Titles without simplifying them was to begin at the wrong end. By simplifying Titles only could they facilitate the transfer of laud.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTthought that a Measure dealing with the transfer of land was one of the highest importance. ["Hear, hear!"] He had for many years advocated the passing of a Measure for the registration of land, because nothing more disgraceful could be imagined than the title of land in this country. The fact was that no landowner in the kingdom knew whether he had a good title to his land or not. The title deeds to the greatest estates in the country were locked up in a box in a solicitor's office, and neither the landowner nor his solicitor really knew whether those documents have a good title to the property they referred to, and that was the condition of the title to all land. ["Hear, hear!"] When a landowner wanted to sell his property one of the first conditions he made was that the purchaser should not require him to make out an absolute title. It was astonishing that land should be held under such conditions, and it was still more astonishing that landowners should object to a reform that would simplify their titles to their properties. The fact was that the family solicitor always said to his client, "For heaven's sake do not allow your title to your property to be inquired into, because you may not have a good title to it." The result was that the landowner became alarmed, and the family solicitor, for obvious reasons, objected to any change being made in the law on the subject. The consequence was that when any attempt was made to abolish this scandalous state of things the whole body of solicitors came down and used all their legitimate influence to prevent that attempt from being successful. Unless hon. Members on both sides of the House were determined to meet the exercise of that influence against the reform of our land system by the adoption of a common-sense Measure no legislation on the subject would be possible. ["Hear, hear!"] Lawyers appear to have inherited the tendency of the priesthood of olden times who wrapped up their religion in forms that were unintelligible to ordinary people, 560 and it was to that fact that we owed the present position of our titles to land. He hoped the Government would use the great power which they possessed to arrive at same really satisfactory settlement of this question. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not say that such a settlement would be altogether an adequate remedy for agricultural distress, but it certainly would be greatly to the advantage of the owners of land and indirectly therefore, to the community at large. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ SIR JOSEPH LEESE (Lancashire, Accrington)said that the title of land in the constituency he represented was mainly copyhold, and that the cost of the transfer of landed property under that system was about one-third more than that under the ordinary existing system. He hoped that the principle of the forthcoming Bill would be such as would cover the transfer of copyhold property.
§ SIR JOHN BRUNNER (Cheshire, North wich)said that if the Attorney General would accede to the request of his right hon. Friend he assured him that if he did so, and would make this registry a real and useful institution, the Bill would have no more hearty supporter than himself.
§ MR. R. B. MARTIN (Worcester, Droitwich)pointed out that a system of land registration was carried out in the Isle of Man. Another facility there was that auctioneers were paid by the day.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS (Denbigh, W.)said he had had practical experience of the convenience and cheapness of the system in Australia. He hoped the Government would consider the advisability of introducing a Bill at an early date, at any rate next Session, for the advantage of all who desired to have any transactions in land.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)said that on the Continent of Europe and in America there was a system of land registration. The system in America was far inferior to the Australian system, as the Americans themselves readily acknowledged. As far as the circumstances of the case would admit, he hoped that they should have a system as near as possible to that excellent, simple and cheap system which was found in Australia, It had been, 561 suggested that that House was terrorised by solicitors outside, and they knew that there was another place which had unquestionably suffered from that cause, and he hoped that both parties would make up their minds to carry this great and necessary reform.
§ The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,) Isle of Wightregretted that the right hon. Member for Monmouthshire had used so much exaggeration in his speech; the representations he had made as to the action of solicitors in connection with titles was not in accordance with the experience of any one who had to do with the transfer of land. Of course, they would all be glad if they could arrive at the simple Australian system, but it would be absolutely misleading to the House and to the country to suggest that it could be arrived at in this country. The real difficulties were due to the existing state of things here. The reason why the Australian system worked so simply was because there was one common root title—from the Crown.
§ SIR R. REIDsaid it had been proved by an inquiry that there were a large number of other titles, but that not the least difficulty arose.
§ The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that every one who had studied the Australian system knew that its simplicity was due to the fact that there were but few titles to start with. He entirely agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that something should be done—("hear, hear!")—but they had got an enormous number of titles to deal with in this country. That did not prevent them from wishing to do all they could in the shape of reform, but he thought that lay members of the House very often forgot how much they had to do with the difficulty of passing a simple legal reform. It was no exaggeration to say that he could make ten or 15 small Amendments to the law urgently required, which would be of practical importance, and would be a convenience and save expense, only they attracted so little interest in the House of Commons that it was quite impossible to get that feeling behind them which was necessary in order to get them passed. He should be out of order in explaining, but he referred to amendments of the law in connection with trials, procedure, evidence, and a 562 number of such questions in which no considerations of Party were involved. Lawyers when they endeavoured to deal with these matters did not receive that support which they ought to receive from the House, and these reforms were postponed year after year. He assured hon. Members that it was very discouraging to bring in year after year Bills on such small matters and to have them blocked by private Members. The hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs referred to the obstructive action of the House of Lords, but he must be exceedingly forgetful of what the history of this question was.
§ Mr. HERBERT LEWISsaid he had not meant to blame the House of Lords.
§ The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that to a large extent legal reforms had originated in the House of Lords. There was no doubt that the work of lawyers in the House of Lords had made more mark on the Statute-book than the work of lawyers in the House of Commons. ["Hear, hear!"] He had no idea that this Debate was going to be raised. There was first the demand of the hon. Member for Haddington, who had temporarily quitted the House after making his speech for the reappointment of the Committee. There might be some questions of detail to be settled and some points which might require further elucidation. The next point was as to the introduction of a Bill, but his hon. Friend knew that the responsibility for that did not rest with him. They were extremely anxious that the subject should be dealt with, and the present Lord Chancellor had shown no reluctance. ["Hear, hear!"] Of course the hon. Member did not mean this Session; that would be out of the question. Probably he would address some question to the Leader of the House. There was not the slightest reluctance to deal with this question as a whole or in part so as to get reform. He was surprised by the statement made as to the expenditure on copyhold property. He should like to see the system simplified. Before he sat down he wished to say a few words to remove an impression which rested in some minds with regard to the existing Land Registry. It was a mistake to suppose that it was doing no useful work, and it had paid its way during recent years. He wanted to be clearly understood on this point, for it was not fair to bring these charges with 563 regard to the Land Registry. He should merely say that it did not now show a loss; it was paying its way.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS rose to continue the discussion.
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! Nearly the whole of the discussion that has taken place is out of order. The discussion originated on a former occasion when I was not in the chair. No discussion on legislation which may be possible in the future, is in order in dealing with Votes in Supply. I must, therefore, ask the Committee to confine itself to the question of the administration of the Land Registry.
§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)complained that it was difficult to tell the changes in the fees received under different Votes, the result being that they did not know how they stood. He wanted to see one general system applied all round. The form adopted should be the same in every Vote. He compared the Scotch and English Registry, and said that the former was superior. What they now wanted was to see how matters stood.
§ MR. HANBURYsaid the net profit was £6,693.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)agreed with the Chairman's ruling. He would point out that the fees were too high; they could not make land registry a success if it cost more to register a title than it would to go through the whole process of preparing deeds. He also complained that they could only register their titles in London and urged that there should be district registries. He suggested to the Attorney General that the 118th Section of the Land Transfer Act of 1875 should be put into operation. He did not think it would be necessary to create separate registries. At the present moment there were, under the Judicature Act and the Probate Act, district registries in every centre of England and Wales. These registries contained men of considerable conveyancing experience, and it would be a very excellent thing to utilise these registries for the purpose of putting into operation the section he had just mentioned. What would then ensue would be that in every centre of population there would be a registry which would be within reasonable distance of any solicitor. Instead of having 20,000 titles 564 registered annually, the probability was that every title in the kingdom would be registered.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL20,000 searches.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEunderstood that 20,000 titles were registered; 20,000 searches was a very small matter. There must be far more than 20,000 transactions with regard to title in the course of a year. What the hon. and learned Gentleman had just said only showed that land registration was a much greater failure than was thought. How many titles were registered? Searches meant little, because there might be half a dozen searches and only one registration. With the view of raising the question of the utilisation of the present district registries, he moved the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALwas a little surprised that, after the disposition he had shown to answer every question, the hon. Member should have thought it right to prolong the discussion upon a matter which, after all, had already been fully explained.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEThe point has not been raised before.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he would, if the hon. Gentleman desired it, give the figures. The hon. Gentleman raised three points. First of all he complained of the magnitude of the fees in London. That matter was very carefully answered some two or three years ago, and it was then found that the fees in many cases were not sufficiently high. The fees were remodelled in order that there might be a fair relation between the amount of the work done and the charge made. He had no information which led him to suppose for a moment that the charges were too high. With regard to the establishment of district offices, he admitted that the present system of land registration did not promote registration of title to the extent it ought, and that in order to make land registration effective there would have to be some alteration in the law. But to establish district registries would only be to multiply the risk and loss which occurred in the London registries. It would be impossible for the present district registrars to do the work. The hon. Gentleman said the district 565 registries were causing great loss. There was no loss. [Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: "I did not say that."] The hon. Gentleman certainly conveyed that impression. The receipts more than covered the expenditure, and no one could say that the district registries were a burden to the country. But from the point of view of staff accommodation, position, and facilities, they were utterly unsuitable for the purpose of land registration. The hon. Gentleman had asked him how many actual registrations there were as distinguished from searches. In 1895 there were 934 actual registrations, and in four years the number had more than doubled. Land registration, he believed, was being carried on without loss and with substantial advantage to the country.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWISdid not think the hon. and learned Gentleman fully understood the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs. The point of his hon. Friend was that a number of district registries had been established in connection with the High Court of Justice, that attached to those registries were a number of highly paid officials—he did not say too highly paid—and that it was possible to utilise those registries, and that a great deal more work might be got out of them. He agreed with, his hon. Friend that the present district registries were in a far better position to undertake the additional work than newly-created offices would be.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea District)said the Attorney General had maintained that the district registries could not be expected to undertake the work which would be cast upon them if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Carnarvon were adopted.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALI said that from the point of view of staff accommodation they could not do the work.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that, was an assertion he challenged. It so happened it fell to his lot to appoint a registrar to the County Court of Gloucester, and therefore to the district registry of Gloucester. The present Lord Chancellor intimated to him that it would be well if he nominated for the office a gentleman who would be willing to give up private business as a solicitor, with the especial 566 view of casting as many public duties upon the district registry as might from time to time be found convenient. He believed the special cause of this intimation was the idea that it would be well to amalgamate the Probate Registry of the Probate Division of the High Court of Justice and the District Registry of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. Probably that was what was chiefly intended by the Lord Chancellor. A gentleman was appointed by him to the office of District Registrar of Gloucester, who complied with the condition. He had not been appointed yet to the Probate Registry, and he knew that at the present time the work of that office was not sufficient to take up the whole time of that gentleman, and that the staff was perfectly competent to carry on much larger work that it was now doing. He knew some other offices of which that assertion would be perfectly true. Therefore he must inform the Committee that the suggestion of the Attorney General was not in accordance with the facts of many of the registries. There could be no difficulty in that regard, and if the only point which could be urged against the argument of his hon. Friend was that the registrar's staff was not sufficient, then he undertook to say that in regard to the greater number of district registries it would be quite easy to carry out the suggestion.
§ MR. E. W. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)suggested that the Amendment should not be pressed. The discussion appeared to be somewhat unprofitable, for the reason that it had been recognised by both Lord Chancellors that a change in the system of registration would be necessary before it could be made a success. If they were to attempt now to deal with district registries all over or in different parts of the country, they would find, at all events at first, that they would tend to perpetuate the system that was now going on, and that was recognised as not a successful system. He ventured to think it would be idle and foolish for any Government or Lord Chancellor to establish local registries until they had a change in the system of registration. The hon. Member had raised the question, which had been in the minds of lawyers for a very long time, and he would suggest that it would 567 be better for it to come on when the great land transfer question must be fully discussed in that House.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid they had been promised a Bill for years, and if they were going to wait until they got the Bill nothing would be done. What he suggested was that they should utilise the powers they had got at present. He did not see why the Attorney General should not make this recommendation, and he was sure it would be done. They could then make a start, and when the Bill came the registries could be improved. His suggestion was that they should utilise the registries already in existence. He knew some populous districts where the district registry was admirably manned and equipped. The Attorney General said something about fees, but he would point out to the Committee that it was because they had so few cases at the present moment that the fees were high. Every additional case they introduced into the registry reduced the fees, and if they simply put the Act into operation and by that means increased the number of cases, they were bound to reduce the fees at the same time. His complaint was that they could not utilise the powers they had got at the present moment. He could not withdraw his Amendment, but must take the sense of the Committee upon it.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,263, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Lloyd-George).
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 40; Noes, 118.—(Division List, No. 223.)
§ Original question put, and agreed to.
§
2. Motion made, and Question proposed:—
That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWISremarked that an item of £300 was voted during the last year for the purposes of prosecutions for assaults on bailiffs and other law expenses. He observed a similar amount was estimated for this year. What were the cases which necessitated the granting of so large a sum as £300? 568 He would ask the Attorney General whether the maintenance of the Established Church, for example, had anything to do with it, and whether they were to pay this amount so long as an Established Church was maintained in this country? How much of this particular amount was the tithe sales in Wales responsible for?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALdid not think this was a large item when it was considered that it applied to the whole County Court bailiffs of the kingdom. It was quite true that some years ago there was considerable difficulty in the way of tithe collection in Wales, but that difficulty had now, to a very large extent, disappeared. He believed some portion of the amount might be required for the purpose of prosecutions for assaults on bailiffs in connection with the collection of tithes. Looking at the amount of money recovered through the medium of the County Courts of the country, he thought the hon. Member would agree that this was really a small sum. As far as he could gather, the bailiffs of the County Court performed very difficult duties with care and moderation, and in those few cases where they were subjected to assaults it was requisite they should have protection.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESagreed with the view that the bailiffs performed their work in an admirable manner, and, so far from complaining of this small amount, his opinion was rather that the Treasury did not always prosecute in all cases where a bailiff needed protection. He referred to an item of £400 on page 230 for "incidental expenses, jury lists," and asked how these expenses were incurred?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALreplied that this was the expense of the preparation of the jury lists by the Sheriffs at twopence per folio. There was nothing unusual in the charge, which was very small, the total amounting to only £400 a year.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS, referring to item a, for salaries, asked whether any of these officers were paid by fees and poundage, because, if so, the information should be included in the Vote, so that the Committee might know exactly the amount paid each officer in the way of salary.
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,) Prestonsaid he was not in possession of information which would enable him to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but he would make inquiries.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEagreed with what had fallen from hon. Members as to the necessity for protection being afforded bailiffs in the execution of their duty. He also agreed that some of those officials performed their duties in an admirable manner. What he objected to was this. The Attorney General had referred to prosecutions for tithe assaults upon bailiffs, and had said that these prosecutions had not been nearly so many as they were two on three years ago. But still there were yet prosecutions of that kind going on. The officers of the law were bound to be protected, and when they made their protests to the Treasury the Treasury was bound to give them protection. His case was that cases were brought where really the facts did not justify the prosecution. Within the last year cases of this kind had been brought in the county of Cardiganshire. The bailiff was exceedingly offensive, so much so that something in the nature of a technical assault might have been alleged. He brought the matter before the Court, and after a long, patient, and impartial hearing the magistrate dismissed all the cases. What he himself said was this, that where the Treasury declined to prosecute in cases of genuine assault, they ought not to consent to spend money in cases which were instituted, not for the purpose of protecting bailiffs, but for the purpose of creating the impression that there were breaches of the law in Cardigan-shire over the collection of the tithe, and to bring discredit upon a people who, though poor, were a law-abiding people. The cost of this prosecution must have amounted to at least £100, and as a protest he moved to reduce the Vote by that amount. Cardiganshire and Pembrokeshire were notably law-abiding counties. At the last two Assizes for Pembrokeshire the Judge was presented with white gloves, there being no cases for him to try. This was the rule, and not the exception there. Criminal statistics showed that no counties in the kingdom were so free from crime. He was assured that assaults of the kind 570 alleged would not have been committed without circumstances of aggravation which would justify the magistrates in saying the person assaulted had brought it upon himself. Little of this money was spent in Wales at all, and, with the exception of these tithe prosecutions, he did not believe a single penny of the money had been spent in Cardiganshire. He protested against the stigma sought to be cast on a peaceful, law-abiding people by moving the reduction of the Vote.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the Secretary to the Treasury nor himself knew how much of the money was spent in Wales. He would endeavour to ascertain between this and the Report stage. He believed the hon. Member was right, and that little or none of it was spent in Wales. He hoped the hon. Member would be content with the protest he had made, and not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
§ Question put, "That item H, for Prosecutions for Assaults on Bailiffs, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 29; Noes, 96.—(Division List, No. 224.)
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he wished once more to call attention to the exorbitant fees charged in County Courts for the recovery of small debts. The subject had often been discussed in the House, but nothing had as yet been done to remedy the grievance. Before proceedings could be commenced for the recovery of a small debt there was a fee of 1s. in the pound to pay. If it was sought to recover a debt of —6, 7s. had to be paid to commence proceedings. Often 2s. and 3s. in the pound had to be paid for fees before judgment could be obtained, and if the creditor proceeded to execution, etc., the fees often equalled the amount of the debt itself. If you entered an action for £20 in the High Court, the fees amounted to a few shillings only, and it was really cheaper to enter an action in the High Court than in the County Court. The jurisdiction of the County Courts had been greatly extended, but, owing to the high fees, the County Courts were not utilised as they ought to be, because it was found much cheaper to 571 come to London and enter an action without paying high fees. The continuance of the high fees was unjustifiable, because the Treasury received £425,000 from the Courts, which was more, he believed, than they received in fees from the High Court.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that the point raised was one of very great importance to a large number of small suitors, to whom a charge of 3s. in the pound on the amount of a claim was extortionate. There were many cases relating to small estates heard in the County Courts, and the fees amounted to a serious charge, which some estates could ill afford to bear.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that County Court cases might be divided into two classes—first, debt-collecting cases, and secondly, cases which raised substantial issues similar to those tried in the High Court. The fees on the small-debt cases amounted to a heavy tax on the working classes, and fell with hardship on those who, living partly on credit, were unable to pay when they lost employment through a strike or otherwise. But, in the other class of cases, the fees were not too high, and in Admiralty cases they were not high enough. He did not think the Treasury would be a loser by reducing the fees in the ordinary debt cases.
§ DR. CLARKsaid he was astonished that the people in England had so long stood the high County Court fees. In Scotland a case could be entered for 2s. 1d., which would cost between £2 and £3 in fees in England. It was difficult to get at the exact figures as to the receipts and payments of the County Courts, because some officers were paid partly by fees and partly by salary, and the registrar was paid according to the number of plaints entered. The information could be got at only by an examination of the Appropriation accounts; and he would ask whether it could not be presented in a more simple form.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the account asked for would be a somewhat complicated one, but perhaps the information might be given in a modified form. This question of the fees payable on the recovery of small debts was an important one, and was constantly occupying the attention of the Lord Chan 572 cellor, and also of the Committee of County Court Judges. If the hon. Members who had raised the question would care to send him any suggestion or statement, he would forward it to the Lord Chancellor for his consideration. But they would understand that a mere general complaint about fees would not be helpful or have any practical effect. It was an extremely difficult matter to apportion the costs as between the different classes of suits heard in such large numbers. The hon. and learned Member, who had had experience as a County Court Judge, had made a practical suggestion which was worthy of consideration; but the adoption of his scheme would involve the raising of some fees, and that always created difficulties. The income and the expenditure were about balanced now, and, if the income continued to increase, it might be possible to make some reductions of fees. The matter was one for the Lord Chancellor, and not for himself; and the opinions of the Committee of County Court Judges would be taken on the matter before anything was done.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that a good principle of differentiation had been suggested. There were contentious cases that occupied a long time, and yet paid little more than small-debt cases and wages cases, which occupied only a few minutes. Still he was much obliged for the satisfactory answer which the Attorney General had given.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ On the return of the CHAIRMAN, after the usual interval,
§
3. Motion made, and Question proposed:—
£2,800, to complete the sum for Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
§ MR. HERBERT LEWISobserved that, including the charge upon the Consolidated Fund, a sum of £55,056 was estimated for as the contribution of the country at large for a single year towards the cost of London police courts and police magistrates. It seemed most unreasonable that the country at large should be called upon to pay the expenses of law and justice in the Metropolis.
§ DR. CLARK, interposing, said he thought the Government ought to be allowed to get this Vote because they had brought in the Metropolitan Police Courts Bill to transfer the charge under this Vote from Portsmouth to London.
§ MR. LEWISadmitted the importance of the fact just mentioned, but they did not know whether the Bill referred to was going to become law or not, and in the meantime he objected to the expenditure in this year, because the benefit of it was entirely confined to the metropolis.
§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea), called the attention of the Home Secretary to the extent to which young boys and girls were allowed into the police courts while the details of revolting and indecent cases were being heard by the magistrates. He made some special inquiries into this subject at the time of the Plaistow murder, where two boys of immature age killed their mother, and found that only a few days previously the boy who was the principal in the murder had been down to Southend and had gained access to the court when Read, the Southend murderer, was tried and condemned for the murder of his sweetheart. He felt the matter so keenly that he wrote to the Commissioner of Police, who replied in very sympathetic terms, but said it appeared to him that the matter was one for the consideration of the magistrates, who alone, he thought, could say who was or was not to be admitted to the courts over which they presided. Being doubtful as to who had the authority to exclude these young persons he wished to bring the subject under the attention of the Home Secretary, with the view of asking him to issue orders in that cause, because he was satisfied that no more fruitful source of manufacture of youthful criminals could be found than freely permitting them to listen to the unsavoury and revolting details of the police courts.
THE CHAIRMAN, as a matter of order, said this question could not pro 574 perly be discussed on the present Vote, because the salaries of London magistrates were not borne upon the Vote. There was no objection to asking a question upon it, but no debate was permissible.
§ MR. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)sympathised to some extent with the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Battersea, but with regard to the question and the expense incurred by the country generally in relation to Metropolitan police courts, hon. Gentlemen were not apparently aware that a very large amount of the taxation of the country was already thrown on the metropolis. Their jurisprudence was more delayed in London than it was in the country, and if they received some small portion of payment, he did not think that petty complaints should be made. The Metropolitan police courts were of use to those who came to London from time to time, and who sometimes found their way into the police courts. [Laughter.] Hon. Members seemed to object to anything that was for the benefit of London, even to the prevention of bilking cabmen. ["Oh!" and laughter.] Yes, it was the hon. Member for Wales who—
§ MR. WEBSTERsaid he was more particularly referring to the London police courts, and he contended that London received less than its due.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESexpressed sympathy with the complaint made by the hon. Member for Battersea, but he wished to point out, that after all the efficiency of the Courts of Justice depended chiefly upon what might be called the subordinate officers of the Courts of Justice. It a great deal depended on how the usher of a Court was dealt with.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that his experience, and he spoke as a barrister, was that the judges sometimes ordered 575 subordinate officers, but these did not always obey. It amounted to something like a scandal, for not only the ushers, but he was sorry to say sometimes the police, did not carry out the orders of the superintending judge or magistrate. He was speaking with some knowledge of the police courts of London as counsel, and it was a fact that it was sometimes a very difficult thing for magistrates to get their orders carried out with regard to the matter mentioned by the Member for Battersea. How could a judge sitting on the bench see that his order was properly carried out? He had known orders given, and 10 minutes afterwards he had seen persons in the Court who ought not to have been there if the orders of the judge had been carried out. He desired, not only with reference to the London police courts, but to many in the country, to emphasise the complaint made by the hon. Member for Battersea.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEcomplained that the statement that a Bill would be introduced was no answer to their point. Even if this Bill to transfer the charge were introduced, they were still called upon to pay the money.
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYNo, Sir; the matter would be balanced.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that, apart from that, the late and the present Government admitted that it was unfair to call on the country generally to pay for the Metropolitan police courts. The country was not asked to vote for the police courts of Manchester and other provincial cities. There was nothing in London which was not applicable to other cases. He did not think they were going to wipe it out by Act of Parliament. Even so, that showed how unfair it was to ask for a Vote for another year. [A laugh.] No, it was not fair. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYI do not admit it.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEunderstood that the Bill was to provide that never for the future would the country be 576 burdened with this charge, but they were voting the money for the current year. If it was not right that this money should be paid, why ask for the sum of £4,300? Was it right that the taxpayers of the country should be taxed for the maintenance for another year of the Metropolitan police courts?
§ MR. F. G. BANBURY (Camberwell, Peckham)How about Dr. Jameson and Dr. Herz? ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGErecognized the point raised by the hon. Member with regard to State trials; but they were very rare, perhaps only one every ten years as a rule.
§ MR. WEBSTERHow about election petitions? [Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEdid not see the relevance of that interruption. [Hear, hear!"] He recognised the other, but State trials were not all conducted in London. Take the Walsall case. If taxes were to go to support the London police courts, why not Walsall, and Glasgow, and other places? As to the salaries of clerks, under the old system the fees paid the salaries, and if that had not been done away with there would not have to be a penny voted for these salaries.
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid the Bill, which he was extremely anxious to carry into law, did not pretend to be a settlement of the vexed question of the charges of the Metropolitan police-courts. It did not deal, for instance, with the salaries of the magistrates. But it proposed to transfer all other expenses of the Courts from the Imperial Exchequer to the Metropolitan Police Fund. He agreed with the hon. Member for Battersea that juvenile crime was often traceable to the presence of boys and girls among the spectators of London police-courts; but it did not come within his jurisdiction to direct the magistrates as to who might and might not be admitted to the courts during the hearing of cases. He hardly thought there was any foundation for the 577 statement that the Metropolitan police magistrates were not, in the matter of the admission of persons to the courts, obeyed by the ushers of the courts, He believed the London police magistrates were well able to maintain control over their courts, and see that their orders were obeyed. Every magistrate and every judge had the right, if he thought fit, to intimate to persons in his court that it would be desirable if they absented themselves; but to direct the magistrates as to the persons in regard to whom they were to exercise their powers of exclusion did not come within the province of the Home Secretary. With regard to the question of the fees, there was no provision for compulsory periodical examination of them. They were fixed by Statute, and not as in the counties, by the Standing Joint Committee.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGENot in London. As regards London it is under the Home Office.
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he did not believe it was in the power of the Home Office to order a compulsory examination every five years, as in counties, of the foes, but he was under the impression they were fixed by Statute. He would, however, consider the matter.
§ MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)hoped that the promised action of the Home Secretary would not lead to a reduction of the fees of the justices' clerks. He placed a very high value on their services. He thought the good they effected by preserving good humour and order in the police courts of this vast metropolis could not be over estimated, and they certainly were not overpaid.
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYThere is no question of reducing the salaries.
§ DR. CLARKthought those clerks ought to be ashamed of themselves for the way they sponged on the poor-box.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,) Birmingham, BordesleyWhat about Edinburgh?
§ DR. CLARKsaid that in Edinburgh everything was paid for locally; and what he protested against was that while they in Scotland paid all the expenses of their police courts they should also have to pay a share of the expenses of the London police courts. The justices' clerks of the Metropolitan courts were paid £300 a year. In addition to that they had perquisites for furnishing copies of depositions varying from £9 to £75 per annum each, and one received £10, and another £5 for the management of the poor-box. He called that sponging on the poor-box. Until the Bill referred to by the Home Secretary was passed, they would continue to protest against the principle of the charges of the Metropolitan police courts being imposed upon the Imperial Exchequer.
§ MR. J. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid)said it had taken a good many years of calling attention to this subject to get the Home Office to do anything, and now the Bill that was promised would deal with only £4,500 out of the £60,000 which the Metropolitan police courts cost the country every year.
§ MR. WEBSTERsaid that the metropolitan ratepayers would be quite willing to bear this £4,500 if the whole question of their rateability and taxability were gone into.
§ COLONEL MILWARD (Warwick, Stratford-on-Avon)said it was true certain national cases were tried at the Metropolitan police courts, and to that extent and no further the country ought to be called upon to pay for them. The hon. Member for Caithness ought to withdraw the statement that clerks "sponged" on the poor box. The extra payments that were made to them were placed upon this Estimate and no money went out of the poor box into their pockets. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ Mr. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.)said that after the Home Secretary's promise of legislation, the London aspect of the case might be dropped for the present. He wished to ask whether 579 anything had been done in the direction of holding a special court or appointing a magistrate specially to hear School Board cases, so as to save the parents who were summoned unpleasant association with the police court. A Departmental Committee had been considering what could be done to facilitate the hearing of the charges against cabmen and other drivers for street offences. The Committee recommended that arrangements should be made for hearing the cases early in the forenoon so that the men might not lose a whole day, as they did, in waiting while other business was disposed of. Some remarkable evidence was given as to the City Court where, in a whole year, there were not as many cases as there were in a single week in the Marlborough Street and other Metropolitan courts. Another point to which he should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was with reference to the remuneration given to female attendants at the police courts. He found that there was a total sum of £500 asked for under this head, some of the women receiving 15s. a week, and others only 7s. 6d. a week. He should like to know how many received the smaller sum. A sum of £900 was asked for for the charwomen employed in the same service some of whom received the fair remuneration of 42s. a week, whilst others received only 11s. 6d. a week. He wished to know the number receiving the latter sum. Full particulars were given in the cases of chief clerks, but no information whatever was given regarding the humbler classes of employées.
§ MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that he wished to join hon. Members in pressing upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the advisability of some arrangement being made for the trial of cab cases. It was very creditable to the 12,000 or 14,000 London cabmen that when taken to the police courts—very often innocent of the charges made against them for trifling offences—they 580 should have a repugnance to being compelled to associate with bad characters. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consult with the London police magistrates to see whether one or two days in the week could not be set apart for the trial of such cases, so as to prevent the cab cases being mixed up with those of brutal assaults. Then, again, with regard to School Board cases, they had no right to ask a parent to a police court to give his reasons for not sending his child to school. The parents frequently took their children with them, and these children had to sit for hours in the courts listening to criminal cases of the worst description. If the right hon. Gentleman felt that he could not interfere in the matter perhaps he might make some observations on that occasion which the magistrates might read in the morning, and he was certain that those observations would receive every consideration at the hands of the magistrates. He also desired to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that boys and girls were in the habit of frequenting the police courts for the purpose of listening to the cases which came before the magistrates, and if a hint were given to police inspectors to carefully exclude juvenile persons from the public galleries and from the back of the courts much good would result.
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he had no power to direct either the police or the magistrates as to whom they permitted to come into their courts. It was now the practice in London police courts to hear School Board cases immediately after the luncheon interval, when there were no cases waiting to be heard, and he had suggested the same procedure elsewhere. He had been in communication with Sir John Bridge in regard to the question of cabdrivers' summonses, and he reported that a great deal depended on the arrangement of the court, but that it would be very inconvenient if there were only one or two courts in the whole metropolis where 581 these cases might be heard. Sir John Bridge also said that his own practice was to take cab cases immediately after the School Board cases. He thought that practice might fairly be adopted by the other courts.
§ DR. CLARKsaid that as he had been rebuked for the phraseology he had used he would call attention to the fact that the Appropriation Account gave three pages of the extra remunerations which were received by different officers. A chief clerk who received a salary of £500 a year, and in addition to various extra items, some of which were substantial, he received the sum of £5 from the poor box for managing the distributions. There were several of these items, the sums ranging from £5 to £10, and such a use of the funds was, he repeated, mean and contemptible. He moved to reduce the Vote by £100 as a protest against the system of fees, and this method of sponging on the poor box.
§ Mr. LEWISsaid the statement of the hon. Member had at first been specifically denied, and he thought the Government should give some explanation of this extraordinary procedure. It was merely a charitable function which was performed, and the very least they could do was to see that all contributions to the poor box should be devoted to the poor. Although it might not be illegal, it was a most improper proceeding, and he therefore supported his hon. Friend in his protest.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREthought that the Secretary to the Treasury ought to consider this point. It was well known that these poor boxes did a vast amount of good, but if it was known that out of these funds which were subscribed an individual clerk, who had a salary of £450 or £500 a year, received £5 per annum for what was called "managing" the thing, the contributions might fall off. As it might affect the contributions, it was therefore an important point, and he would urge the right hon. Gentleman to put an end to this abominable system.
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYMy right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury is not responsible. I am quite ready to give a full answer.
§ COLONEL VICTOR MILWARD (Warwickshire, Stratford-on-Avon)said that he would put a Question to the Treasury, and if he found that the money did come out of the poor box, he would apologise to the hon. Member for Caithness. He agreed that no such payment should be made from the poor box.
§ MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Walsall)thought that a good deal of cheap indignation had been wasted on this subject. If these funds did so much good, it was because they were so well administered. The administration involved more work, and a small sum spent in getting it well done was well spent.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that Gentlemen of the legal profession never could realise that anyone could do anything without being paid for it. [Cheers and laughter.] The hon. Gentleman's speech was a six-and-eightpenny speech. [Laughter.] The Home Secretary had declared himself ready to answer; but he had not answered. Let him say why these Clerks, who got a comfortable living out of the public, should have to "cadge" out of the poor box. ["Hear, hear!"]
§ MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that, unless the right hon. Gentleman gave a satisfactory answer, the receipts of the poor-boxes would suffer; because nothing influenced the charitable so much as the suggestion that the contributions went to pay men who ought to work for nothing. If the clerks would not surrender these payments, let the funds be handed over for distribution to the inspectors of police at the different courts. They would undertake the work willingly, and would not be mean enough to ask for reward.
§ MR. DALZIELthought it a matter of regret that the Home Secretary had not expressed his sympathy with the complaint which had been made. Probably, 583 however, the clerks returned the cheques which they received. Would the right hon. Gentleman make inquiry at some of the principal police courts as to whether the money was actually drawn; and, if it had been, would he promise to consider the matter before next year's Estimates?
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid that had the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy been present throughout the discussion, he would know that he had dealt with the subject—that he promised to look into the complaint. He agreed with hon. Gentlemen that it should not be supposed for a moment that there was any unfair call upon the poor-box, or that anything was taken out of it which ought to go to the deserving poor. He was informed that two clerks who received salaries of from £100 to £300 a year administered the poor-box fund, and received £5 or £10 for doing so. He could well imagine there was a good deal of work connected with the administration of the fund, and that the men were not improperly rewarded by some payment. Some time ago the question of the payment of these clerks was brought before the Treasury, and that Department considered that the clerks should not be paid sums they now received, that no subsidiary payments of this sort should be required—["hear, hear!"]—but in face of the Act of Parliament they were powerless to make any alteration. He would look further into the matter.
§ MR. DALZIELsaid the right hon. Gentleman was a little unjust in his remarks concerning him. He had been present during the whole of the Debate, and could safely say that until this moment, the Home Secretary gave them no indication at all with regard to the administration of the poor-box fund.
§ DR. CLARKsaid that as this was a dying charge, he would not press his Motion. He hoped, however, the body who would control the clerks in future would give the latter salaries befitting their work.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Vote agreed to.
584
§
4. Motion made, and question proposed:—
That a sum, not exceeding £40,927 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the pay and expenses of Officers of Metropolitan Police employed on special duties, and the salaries and expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary.
§ MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S. W.)said there was a charge of £600 for a scientific adviser. Would the Home Secretary say who the scientific adviser was, and what was the nature of the duties he performed? Another point he wished to raise was the mode in which the police supervision of ex-convicts was carried out in the metropolis. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman for information, and he declined to give it. He desired to know what proportion of ex-convicts who reported themselves were to the total number who were liable to report.
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he had not declined to give any information he could possibly give. He would give the hon. Gentleman every information in his power.
§ MR. PICKERSGILLsaid there was no doubt as to the ability to give the information as the statistics were in the hands of the Department at New Scotland Yard. He desired the information so that the question might be settled whether the system of giving ancillary punishment was a satisfactory one, or whether it was, as many well-informed persons in official positions had declared it to be, a miserable failure.
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid he would give the hon. Gentleman any information upon that point which was in his power; he had nothing to conceal.
§ MR. BANBURYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could make some changes in the tunic of the police. It was extremely heavy during the hot weather, and if a lighter tunic were substituted, it would not interfere with the appearance or the efficiency of the men, and, at the same time, would give them more freedom of movement, and conduce greatly to their comfort.
§ DR. CLARKsaid he strongly objected to the charges for the Metropolitan Police being placed upon Parliament, and he wished to press upon the Home Secretary to go further than they were proposing to go in their Bill, and to place these charges upon the Metropolitan Police Fund, as well as those for the Metropolitan Magistrates. They had one Commissioner, and two Assistant Commissioners under this Vote. There was a third Assistant Commissioner who did not come under this Vote, but was paid from the Fund. They paid the Chief Commissioner £1,500 a year, and then they paid him £300 a year for doing something else. They gave the Assistant Commissioners £800 a year, and paid them three or four salaries besides. He objected to these matters from the standpoint of a Scotch Member, because Scotland had not only to pay all their own costs, but they had also to pay a portion of England's. The cost to the Imperial Government for police in England was nearly £300,000 a year. Under this Vote alone it was £227,000. They paid in Scotland for all these Departments about 1,000 guineas. He did not mind foolish expenditure in England in some Departments, because they got an equivalent grant for themselves in Scotland. But they got no equivalent here. If they did then he would not care very much how much they spent, because in Scotland they would get their equivalent share. The actual Imperial expense for police in Scotland was £1,000. In London, under this Vote, they had got about £60,000. It was grossly unfair that they should compel the people of Scotland to pay all their own charges, and also to contribute their share, under this Vote, to the London police. He strongly objected to London getting all this more for police than Scotland got. The people of London had now got a central government in their County Council, and he thought now that that was the case, all these charges should be defrayed not by the Imperial Parliament, but by the metropolis.
§ MR. COHENobserved that the hon. Member for Caithness had said he had only been able to look into that branch of the subject which alone they were entitled to discuss. As a London Member, and a Member of the London 586 County Council, he protested against the subject being discussed and approached when it could only be discussed from one point of view. The hon. Member had contended—what he was not prepared to concede—that upon London should be cast the entire charges to which he had raised objection. For his part he did not shrink from, but, on the contrary, challenged an investigation into the whole subject, but he said that until the question was investigated in its entirety, in order that London might be protected where she paid too much in the way of Imperial contributions, it would be unfair to enter upon a debate, the only object of which was to try and establish that London did not pay enough. It would be impossible to establish such a claim if the matter was looked into fairly, but it would not be regarded from an equitable point of view if they ignored the difference in the responsibilities discharged by the Metropolitan police and those of provincial towns like Edinburgh. The Metropolitan police discharged a number of varied duties which were national, and not in any sense local and which, therefore, entitled the metropolis to a grant from the Imperial Exchequer for its police, to which no provincial town in any other part of the United Kingdom could establish any claim whatever.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEprotested against all contributions towards London which placed it on a different footing to other parts of the Empire, or such small provincial towns like Edinburgh, as the hon. Member had described it. [Mr. COHEN: "Or Carnarvon!"] At any rate Carnarvon, small as it was, paid for its own police, whereas a great city like London had to come to the Imperial Exchequer and say: "Give us £54,000 to pay for our police." He denied that the duties of the Metropolitan police were more national than those of the police of small provincial towns like Edinburgh, Manchester, and Carnarvon, to which the hon. Member had referred so contemptuously. They had simply to protect the life, and property of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. At the same time they had got £5,000,000 of people in London to contribute towards the maintenance of the police, whereas in Edinburgh they had only got 200,000 587 or 300,000 people. He failed to see why a distinction should be made between the police of London and those of other towns, and for his part he should press the matter to a Division.
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYremarked that if hon. Members would look at the Vote they would see that the only charge in respect of the Metropolitan police was a charge for salaries of Commissioners and the expenses of officers who were specially employed in connection with the public buildings and other duties which were Imperial. With reference to the question as to the scientific expert, the gentleman was Dr. Carson, who was appointed by his predecessor, before he left Office for three years certain, at a salary of £600 a year. His duty was to instruct the warders, and those who had charge of the metric system how to conduct that process, and he hoped he might be able to give sufficient instruction so that it would not be a permanent appointment. As to the uniforms of the police, he had more than once discussed the question with the authorities who had the management of the police, and who, whilst willing to consider everything likely to improve the efficiency or conduce to the comfort of the police, did not look upon the change suggested with favour. He had been assured that during the hottest weather there had been no larger percentage of illness by the tunic in use than there had been in any other portion of the year.
§ DR. CLARK moved the reduction of Vote by £1,000 as a protest against Scotland, which he said was already overtaxed, being called upon to contribute towards the cost of police in England. £100,000 was about to be voted for the cost of the police in London alone. Edinburgh was to Scotland what Dublin was to Ireland and London to England. All the Law Courts were there. Yet in Edinburgh the Inspector General of Constabulary only received £850 a year. In Dublin the police cost 588 £90,000 a year and the Vote for police generally in Ireland was £1,500,000. Over £300,000 was the cost of police in England. None of this went to Scotland. He protested against Scotland having to pay towards the maintenance of police in England.
§ MR. ROBERT WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)supported the Amendment. He would not have risen but for the reference that had been made to the standing of different cities in connection with the Vote. Allusions had been made to the metropolis with which he was connected in a representative capacity. He undertook to say that allusions of that description were not only uncalled for, but totally unfounded. The principle on which his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness went seemed to him quite incontrovertible, and he could not understand on what ground it could be contended that a city like Edinburgh should be placed in a more humiliating position than the place in which they happened by accident to be then assembled. It had been a long-standing grievance that London, simply because it was the Metropolis of the United Kingdom, should be selected for favourable advantages from the public purse. On that simple and single consideration he felt himself perfectly justified in supporting his hon. Friend. He could not understand why a rich place like London should desire to be supported out of the public purse in a way that was not allowed to any other part of the Kingdom.
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid this Vote was an application of the principle already conceded by the Home Secretary. On the last Vote the right hon. Gentleman admitted that there was no reason or principle why London should get any special advantage as regarded the Metropolitan Police Force. He now asked the right hon. Gentleman to adopt the same principle with regard to this Vote. In Scotland the police were paid for, one-half by the local ratepayers, and 589 one-half out of the Scotch share of the Probate Grant. So far as the Imperial Estimates were concerned, not one single penny was borne by them for the police in Scotland. Why, then, should England grant money from the Imperial Exchequer for her police? It might be asked, what was the use of discussing this question now, when it had been discussed year after year; but every discussion had its effect, and on the previous Vote they got the Government to do away with an injustice so far as the Metropolitan Police Force was concerned. Equal justice ought to be meted out to Scotland and England in matters of this kind. There ought to be no distinction in favour of England. The very object of the Probate Grant was—
§ MR. CALDWELLsaid that since Scotland had had the Probate Grant all the Scotch charges which were formerly borne on the Imperial Estimates had been defrayed out of Scotch money. The distinction made between England and Scotland in regard to the payment of police was unjust.
§ Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £39,927, be granted for the said Service."—(Dr. Clark.)
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 23; Noes, 141.—(Division List, No. 225.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported.
§
5. Motion made, and Question proposed—
That a sum, not exceeding £426,290, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Expenses of the Prisons in England and Wales, and the Colonies
§ MR. PICKERSGILLcalled attention to the appointment of Captain Harris as Inspector of Prisons. Of Captain Harris he knew nothing except that he 590 had been the Governor of Portland Prison, and he thought it was a question whether a gentleman whose main experience had been gained in connection with the methods and discipline of a convict prison was the best qualified to be made an inspector of local prisons. Portland Prison was the one convict prison in England to which the Howard Association and other prison reformers had for some time been directing the special attention of the Home Office. In their Report the Association said:—
They have reason to believe that there is room for further humanity and consideration in the discipline of two convict prisons—Portland in England and Peterhead in Scotland.Now, he found that the populations at Portland and Dartmoor were about the same, but there was a marked difference in the degree and number of punishments inflicted at these two institutions. He found that at Dartmoor there were three floggings during the year; at Portland 13. At Dartmoor there were 963 cases of dietary punishment; at Portland 1,777. The test of a good disciplinarian being the minimum of punishment by which he could control the men over whom he had charge, he was afraid that, tried by that test, Captain Harris, whatever his special qualifications, had not proved himself a success. With reference to the Report of the recent Committee upon Prisons, he paid a tribute to the high-minded service to the State of Sir E. du Cane. The value of that gentleman's work lay in this—that under his régime order and physical cleanliness had been carried in prisons to the point of perfection. There was perhaps only one recommendation in the Report of the Departmental Committee with which he did not agree, and that was their suggestion that the Home Secretary should appoint a number of inspectors for the purpose, in effect, of inspecting the Prison Commissioners. To that proposal the present Commission were not unaturally opposed, and he cordially agreed with them. It seemed 591 to him that whilst they must take the greatest possible care in the selection of the Prison Commissioners, they had no other alternative, when they were once appointed, than to trust them almost implicitly. The trend of prison reform upon the Continent was quite in that direction. He cordially recognised that the Prison Commissioners had done a great deal towards carrying out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, but in some respects they were absolutely opposed to those recommendations. The Committee recommended that for short sentences the diet of the male prisoners should be improved; but the Commissioners had declined to do that. The Committee recommended that the silent system should be abolished; but the Commissioners had decided that the rule was to remain, though it was not to be rigidly enforced. That decision was not logical. The Committee recommended that as far as possible useful and productive labour should be imposed. But he found that in 36 prisons the labour was still purely unproductive and mechanical. What progress had been made with the Departmental Reports on Prisoners' Aid Societies, the instruction given to prisoners, and the supply of books? Nothing was contemplated in the direction of an intermediate prison recommended by the Committee, though the Lord Chief Justice had thrown the weight of his authority into the scale in favour of the recommendation.
§ MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE (Leeds, W.)did not think that the Departmental Committee had overlooked the work of Sir E. du Cane. A more zealous, upright, and able public servant had never acted in any Department. The Committee had embodied in their report a review of Sir E. du Cane's work given in evidence by Sir Godfrey Lushington, which in itself formed a remarkable testimony. With regard to the criticisms of his hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green, the 592 Committee did not make any substantive recommendation as to whether the inspectors should report direct to the Secretary of State. They merely put the question forward for consideration. He did not agree that the Home Office had been slack in giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee, and the acknowledgments of the Committee were due to Mr. Ruggles-Brise for the zeal, energy and ability which he brought to the consideration of the Report. For his part he rose more with a view to obtain information than to criticise. Out of the 25 recommendations of the Prison Committee, eight had been fully adopted; eight were reserved for further consideration with a view to their adoption; three had been given partial effect to; and only six had been up to the present rejected. Therefore action had been taken with regard to 19 out of the 25 recommendations. They dealt with the treatment of juvenile offenders and weak-minded prisoners, the regulations in regard to visits to prisons, and the general treatment of prisoners, all of which were most valuable, and he thanked the Home Secretary for having carried them into effect. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had any information to give the Committee in regard to the proposed Royal Commission on the duration of sentences, also as to the treatment of habitual criminals and inebriates; whether the Report of the Sub-Committee on the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies would be laid on the Table of the House. He had one criticism to offer on the observations of the Prison Commission on the subject of the amalgamation of local with convict prisons. The Commissioners agreed to amalgamation provided the distinctive nomenclature was maintained. The dual Reports were to be thrown into one. Would this include the statistics? The point to which he wished to draw attention was the present method of determining and awarding punishments in convict prisons. Each director had two prisons 593 allotted to him, which he visited once a month to hear charges and award punishments. The Committee thought that the director ought not to be an intermediate authority in the case of an appeal from his award of punishment by the prisoner to the Home Secretary. The Prison Commissioners in their reply said it was misleading to suppose that the director was an intermediary in his own case, and that increased facilities had been given to prisoners to appeal to the Home Secretary. He would point out that though in local prisons, where punishment was awarded by the Visiting Justices, a prisoner's rights were fully safeguarded, it was not so in convict prisons. Yet there was a greater need for precaution in convict prisons where convicts were separated from the public for long periods of their lives. Men were committed for long terms, and their very existence was forgotten by the outside world. The Committee did not think the system offered sufficient security, he would not say against abuse, but against mistakes which might be harmful and also misleading to the public mind. He agreed with the Commissioners that the system might have worked well till now; but he did not agree with the statement that every facility was given to a person to petition the Secretary of State, and that thereby the rights of a prisoner were safeguarded. What did this come to? It was quite true that at certain intervals a prisoner might send a petition. How could the Secretary of State examine thousands of petitions coming from convict prisons? It was impossible. When he received a lengthy petition full of allegations which required examination in detail, what could he do with it? The Home Secretary's hands wore full; he could not give his attention to one petition in twenty. Petitions were naturally referred for comment to the prison directors; they made their observations, and it was practically upon those the Home Secretary had 594 to come to his decision. That did not seem to be an altogether satisfactory state of things. The decisions might be right in 99 cases and wrong in the hundredth; and in any circumstances the public had no guarantee that the system of punishment and discipline was in the hands of a fairly impartial authority. The Commission said that there might be an appeal from one director to the full board. He had full confidence in the good intentions of the board; but still, they were interested parties; if anything went wrong their tendency would be to stand together. For these reasons he hoped the matter would be further considered. With regard to further action upon the Report, in fairness more time ought to be given to the Home Secretary and the Prison Commissioners for a full consideration of the various details. The Committee relied not only upon specific recommendations, but also upon the recommendation that certain influences should be brought to bear upon prison work, which influences had hitherto been absent. These influences could not be brought into play at once; it was a matter of time; the work must be taken in hand gradually. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the progress he had made in carrying out the recommendations of the Committee, and hoped that satisfactory results would be seen in diminishing the amount of crime in the country. He was glad to read the paper laid on the Table with regard to juveniles and reformatories; and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell them what chance there was of the Committee appointed to inquire into reformatories reporting within a reasonable time. He was glad to see that the Prison Commission approved of the proposal to increase the grants to societies which are proved to do good work for prisoners. He wished to draw special attention to the practical experiments of the Salvation Army in receiving discharged prisoners, teaching them trades, finding 595 situations for them, or sending them out of the country. It was a valuable experiment, and one that, up to the present time, had been attended with a considerable amount of success; and he sincerely recommended it to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ And, it being midnight, further proceeding on consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
§ Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Monday next.