CLASS III. (Hansard, 1 May 1896)

§ MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
said, this Vote included the charges for the Law Officers of the Crown. He had intended last Session to ask a question or two about the new arrangement, but he had not opportunity of doing so when the Vote was under discussion; but in the Report he put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer somewhere about three o'clock in the morning. Therefore, he wished now to get a little more information. The Committee was probably aware that the arrangement made in 1894 was changed immediately the present Government came into office, and he did not think the reasons for the change had ever been given. The arrangement of 1894 was that the Attorney-General should be paid £10,000 a year and the Solicitor-General £9,000, that both should not be allowed to take private practice, and that their salaries should cover fees for contentious business. That arrangement, so far as the House was concerned, he believed gave no dissatisfaction; but immediately on the present Government coming into office the salaries were fixed at £7,000 and £6,000 respectively, with fees in addition for contentious business. When the matter was discussed on Report in August last he had a Treasury Minute 351 in his hand, which had since been withdrawn. A new Minute had been printed, and he wished to know whether there was any change in this Minute.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight
said, there had only been one Minute since the Government came into office. He thought the date of it was some time in July.

§ MR. LOUGH
expressed himself as satisfied on that point. The reasons given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in August last for the change were not satisfactory to his mind. In answer to a question he had put to him, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had assured him that no additional charge should be put upon the taxpayer in connection with the alteration that had been made in the mode of remunerating the Law Officers of the Crown. No such charge ought to be made without good reason. He wanted to know how the new arrangement was working out, and what were the total emoluments which the Law Officers of the Crown received. Could not a return of these emoluments be laid upon the Table of the House, so that hon. Members might know what the country would have to pay under the new arrangement which had superseded that entered into by the late Government?

§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)
said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was responsible to some extent for the legal procedure in connection with election petitions and for the action of the Public Prosecutor. Since the last General Election several election petitions had been tried, and the proceedings had been dragged out to an undue length. In some instances these election petitions had involved great oppression upon the representatives under the existing law. Any syndicate of individuals might present a petition against the return of a Member who might be put to an enormous expense in defending his seat, only to find himself, when successful, confronted by a man of straw as petitioner from whom he could recover no costs.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
Order, order! the hon. Gentleman can only refer to the action of some public officer.

§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER
said, that he was about to point out that the Public Prosecutor, for whose action the Attorney General was responsible, was to be blamed for the present state of affairs in connection with this subject. He thought that the Attorney General, if he had chosen to do so, might have greatly shortened the proceedings in connection with these election petitions.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
Order, order! The hon. Gentleman cannot go into the question of the conduct of the election petitions upon this Vote.

§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER
said, that he asked the Attorney General, as representing to some extent the judicial authority in that House, whether the procedure in the Courts of Justice in relation to the trial of election petitions was satisfactory? The hon. and learned Gentleman, speaking in his place in Parliament, not on behalf of the Government but on his own behalf as a private Member, had declared that those proceedings were not satisfactory. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say in what manner the procedure should be altered in relation to the trials of these petitions? These proceedings had involved a gross waste of public time, and amounted to a scandal.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is out of order in pursuing this topic unless he shows that the Attorney General is responsible for the procedure of the Courts on the trial of election petitions.

§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER
said, that probably he had now said all he wanted to say upon this subject, and he would merely ask the Attorney General what he proposed to do in the matter?

§ *MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)
wished to know what the Law Officers of the Crown received for contentious business. What did the country pay altogether for the services of the Law Officers? The figures ought to be put clearly before the House.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that, with regard to the election petitions, he proposed to communicate with the learned Judges as soon as these trials were over. He entirely recognised that some reform of the procedure with regard 353 to the trial of these petitions was necessary, but it was impossible that he could give the House any information upon the point until he had obtained the opinion of the learned Judges with reference to it. With regard to the subject of the emoluments of the Law Officers of the Crown, the hon. Gentleman who had spoken on the subject appeared to forget that all the information he asked for was to be found in the annual return to Parliament. An hon. Member had asked what was the reason for the delay in settling the amount of the emoluments which were received by the Law Officers of the Crown. When the present Lord Chief Justice occupied the post of Attorney General, it was agreed that the Law Officers of the Crown should give up their private practice, but the scale of their fees for contentious work was largely increased, and therefore the cost to the country was still very large. In June, 1894, a fresh arrangement was entered into under which the scale of fees was reduced. The change that was made when Her Majesty's present Advisers came into office was, first, that all private practice was excluded, even in the House of Lords. The next change was in regard to contentious business. He considered, and so stated to the House, that the arrangement that contentious business should be paid by salary was unwise; he considered it a bad principle that work which might not be done should be paid for. There were many cases in which it might be very much to the advantage of the Government that other counsel than the Law Officers should appear. To take his own case, he did not pretend to be a lawyer skilled in real property or in Chancery business; and it might very likely happen—indeed, cases had occurred during the few months they had been in office—in which he had for that reason directed that the Government should be represented by counsel other than the Law Officers. He recognised that the scale which had been in force was unduly high, and he did not think that in ordinary cases the Law Officer had any right to ask for fees equal to those of the most skilled advocate at the Bar; accordingly, he had expressed his willingness to revert to the old system of paying the ordinary fees for contentious business. The result of these 354 changes to the Treasury would be that in ordinary years the country would gain—he thought it was extremely doubtful that in such years the fees of the two Law Officers, taking them together, for contentious business would reach £6,000. Owing, however, to the extremely heavy business during the last six months, he thought in all probability that his fees would exceed—and he hoped would exceed considerably—the sum of £6,000. The Balfour proescution had been an exceptionally heavy one, and during the current year both the Solicitor General and himself were engaged, as they knew, in a case of momentous importance. He was satisfied, and so were the Treasury authorities, that on the average the expense to the country would not be greater and would probably be less than the salary allowance.

§ SIR FRANK LOCKWOOD (York)
said, the system of absolute abstention from private practice had been in very effective force when he became Solicitor General. During the time when he had the honour of being Solicitor General to the present Government—[Ministerial laughter]—for a month or so, not being quite aware as to what his position was, he had indulged for a little while in private practice. But when it came to paying his salary, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—and he believed he was the only man capable of doing it—insisted upon his returning to the Treasury the modest little fees he had been earning. [Laughter.] He thought in that matter the Financial Secretary was entitled to be congratulated much more than he was. [Laughter.] Under the present system, as he understood it, the Government had the advantage of the whole services of the Law Officers, and that was really the point which it was desirable to obtain. The Attorney General had told them that he would be a little better off, but he was very sorry to hear that the Solicitor General might not be quite so well off; they would hope that things would look up for him in the future. There was one thing in favour of the present system which had not been pointed out. It sometimes happened that when a Law Officer was conducting a case he got a verdict—[laughter]—and if he did the Government were able in their costs to tax the 355 fees which had been allocated in that case and marked upon the briefs of the Law Officers. It did not appear to him that they could say that one system was more economical than the other. In one year one system and in another year the other might be the more economical, but both systems had obtained for the Government the absolute right to the services of the Law Officers.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said, the harrowing story which the right hon. Gentleman had just told seemed to him equally creditable to the Secretary to the Treasury and to himself, and, he might perhaps add, equally creditable to the second Bench opposite from which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury derived such a contagion of correct principles that even in office he had not forgotten them. The extraction of butter from a dog's mouth he should have thought was as nothing to the extraction of £500 or £600 from an eminent lawyer. He was sorry to hear of a suggested grievance on the part of the Law Officers that in certain cases their salaries were not large enough; his opinion was that they were a great deal too large, and that under any circumstances they would continue to be so, because the lawyers on both sides of the House always joined in support of anything that made for increased charges. When they had got a good lawyer they ought to keep the whole of his time for their service. That was the principle which he thought had been largely carried into effect by the new arrangement. The Attorney General had told them there were exceptional circumstances this year whereby he would be largely the gainer; he was afraid that those exceptional circumstances would recur very constantly, and that the exception would become the rule. If they were to have a succession of cases like the Balfour case and the one now pending, they might in the end find themselves no better off in spite of the patriotic efforts of the Secretary to the Treasury. He would recommend the Law Officers to remember the honour attaching to their offices, and not look so much to the emoluments. [''Hear, hear!"] He did not think that the profession of the law was bound up with excessive fees.

§ MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)
called attention to a deficiency in details in the Vote.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, all the figures were given in the return.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
Has the return been published?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Not yet. It is published from time to time. I think the last return was moved for at the end of the last Parliament. It comes out, I think, every two years.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said, it was difficult to discuss the matter without the return. He should like to know the difference between contentious and non-contentious business. He should like to know what was meant by non-contentious business. Did it mean advising the Departments? He thought that was done by separate legal officers. He knew that when he submitted questions to the Local Government Board on several occasions, they were referred to their own Law Officers. What advice was given, and on what points? Another point. He understood that the Law Officers of the Crown were not responsible for the drafting of Bills—that there was a separate charge for that. He should like to know if Bills were submitted to the Attorney or Solicitor General—whether they saw the Bills before they were printed or not. He found there was a charge for two permanent clerks at salaries of £500 and £300. Were they private secretaries, or were they the clerks of the Law Officers?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, it would be gratifying to the Law Officers if all they had to do was non-contentious business. A great many Government Departments—the Board of Agriculture, the Local Government Board, the War Office, the Admiralty, and other minor Departments—

An HON. MEMBER
And the Board of Trade.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Yes, I ought to have included the Board of Trade; all these Departments are entitled to the opinion of the Law Officers. Legal questions arose by hundreds, but it was not to be imagined that every case went to the Law Officers. Many did go, however, involving heavy work. With regard to the drafting of 357 Bills, that was a separate Department, and it was a separate item in the Vote, but every Department had the right to secure the assistance of the Law Officers, and if it was wished, to consult them. That rested with the heads of Departments. With regard to the two clerks, the charge was made at the time the present Lord Chief Justice became Attorney General. They did official business, such as the preparation of papers that came before the Law Officers.

§ SIR FRANK LOCKWOOD
said, it would be found that the allowance to the clerks was reduced at the time referred to. [''Hear, hear!"]

§ MR. LOUGH
said he did not admit that the change, on the whole, had been judicious, and for a reason which he would explain. There were two scandals, or if that were too strong a word, abuses—one, that the Law Officers were getting too high remuneration, and the other that the Law Officers took private practice, preventing them attending properly to the public business. He was glad to say that the second was carefully guarded against in the new arrangement. The argument was good, although it did come from a lawyer. It was of great value to the public that the change made by the late Government, by which the Law Officers of the Crown were excluded from private practice was still maintained. The Attorney General told them that the new arrangement would probably be satisfactory to the country. But the hon. and learned Gentleman plainly said that in a few years the charges might run up, and then the country would not be gainers by the arrangement. There was a note to the Estimate to the effect that the Law Officers were paid by fees according to the ordinary professional scale. That note ought to be worded differently, because in the Treasury Minute there was a little protection for the poor taxpayer, inasmuch as it was said that the fee should not exceed a certain amount. If the system was such that the fees could rise above a certain limit, the system ought to be broken down. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: "It is broken down.''] He would like to know how the arrangement was actually working out, and he should be guided in respect 358 to his future action by the actual figures.

§ *MR. J. F. OSWALD (Oldham)
said, that nearly all public servants were paid a fixed sum, and he could not imagine why the Law Officers should not be content to be similarly paid. Nobody pressed lawyers into the service of the Crown. There were a great many lawyers in practice, and not one of them was bound to leave his profession and take office. Sometimes they heard persons in office sighing and complaining, but, after all, they were anxious to get office. Men did not accept office as a child accepted a present—without quite appreciating what might be the measure of the present. The duties of the offices of Attorney General and Solicitor General were well known to the profession. Before men accepted those offices they could sit down and count the cost; they could total up their fee books and see what they made in the past; they could inquire from their friends who had formerly occupied the position of Law Officer what the probabilities were; they could set one thing against another, and they could judge with accuracy what the chances were of their making it pay to hold office. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite that it was difficult to draw the line between what was contentious and non-contentious business. Although he had spent many years in the practice of the profession of the law, he had never been able to ascertain when a thing ceased to be non-contentious and became contentious. One would like very much to know what these contentious matters were; whether they were matters of great importance which involved serious consideration, or whether they were equivalent merely to what lawyers called short causes and unopposed petitions? As the representative of a great many taxpayers, he protested against this uncertainty as to the expense of any public office. The people were entitled to know what the whole expense was. Personally, he hoped that the arrangement which the present Government had made would not lead to greater expense than the arrangement under which the late Law Officers were content to hold office. With great respect, he felt that under the new arrangement we had 359 reverted to all the uncertainty of the past, when the incomes of the Attorney General and Solicitor General might be raised to a very large amount. Would the Committee allow him to call attention to another matter which was important? The Attorney General referred to the Balfour prosecution. He believed there were five or six lawyers associated in that prosecution, all holding briefs from the Treasury. He would like to know whether those lawyers were allowed to hold other briefs at the time that prosecution was taking place; it was quite possible that the juniors who were assisting the Law Officers in the conduct of that case might be holding briefs elsewhere, and not devoting the whole of their time to the Balfour case. Nowadays they constantly heard of distress and the necessity of relief being given. Representing, as he did, an enormous population of poor people who were heavily taxed, he desired, if he could, to cut down the public expenditure as much as possible. It was said the condition of the working man was improved because he could get things cheaper. The condition of the Attorney General and of the Solicitor General must be improved also, because they could go to cheap markets just as a working man could. He thought the salaries of those officers compared very favourably with the salaries paid to other officials. Higher public officials were content with smaller pay. He had made these observations as a member of the profession, and having the greatest personal respect and regard for the two eminent Gentlemen who now adorned the positions of Attorney General and Solicitor General. He did not wish to cast any reflection upon them; it was the system he did not approve of, and he thought we should be much better off if we fixed once and for all what the salaries of these officers should be. He could not believe they would be influenced at all in the conduct of contentious work by the fact that they did not get fees marked for that work or increased pay, because in any given year their work might increase. At one time the Judges were paid according to the number of cases they tried. Now the Judges did their work for a fixed salary whatever their work was, and they tried the most important cases fairly and impartially without regard to 360 the amount of labour which was entailed. No doubt they had fixed hours, but when their Courts rose they had often to do work in preparing their judgments. He saw no reason why there should be any mystery about the offices of Attorney General and Solicitor General. There were hundreds of men who would be glad to accept either of those offices, and to accept them upon terms quite as reasonable as those under which the present distinguished occupants of the offices held them. He apologised for having trespassed upon the time of the Committee; he had only done so because he thought the Committee would like to hear the opinions of a young lawyer upon this subject.

§ MR.COURTENAY WARNER (Stafford, Lichfield)
said that, as having had some experience in legal matters, he found it best to make a bargain, and not to trust to the fees usually given, because otherwise they were apt to come out very large when added up. He admitted that the Attorney General had made a very good defence, but at the same time the system of fixed salary would, he thought, be more satisfactory, and he hoped the question would be reconsidered. The Committee could not understand where they were for want of a Parliamentary Return brought up to date. A Return was published in August last, when the Estimates were done with. It should be got out about the same time as the Estimates, and be published yearly.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
believed the Return was moved for at a regular period, and gave the fees paid in each financial year. These could not appear on the Estimates, because they were chargeable to different Departments of the Government, and it was impossible to pick out all the items.

§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
supported the appeal of his hon. Friend, and asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not, in the Estimates of future years, put down the amounts paid to the law officers in respect of past years. That would give the House of Commons exactly the kind of information which it wanted when discussing Votes of this kind. But the purpose for which he chiefly rose was to draw attention to the fact that a very strong and reasonable appeal had been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman 361 on the other side, to whose remarks no suspicion of partisanship could possibly attach. Why should the law officers under one Government be treated in one way, and the law officers under a succeeding Government in another? The question was one in which the taxpayers were concerned, and under these circumstances they were justified in asking the Government whether they seriously intended to continue the system under which the taxpayers were laid open to an expenditure the extent of which they could not measure. In order to bring the matter to a test, he moved to reduce the Vote in Item A, for salaries, by £100.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
was surprised that no attempt at reply had been made to a speech which raised several distinct points, and also to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman on the other side. As far as he was concerned, he cast no reflection on the present law officers; it was simply a question of principle. He failed to see why, seeing they were prepared to accept a fixed sum for the non contentious work, they insisted on fees for contentious work. The argument, from the fluctuating character of the work, was equally applicable to every office under the Crown. One year the work was exceedingly heavy in one Department. Take the President of the Local Government Board. No doubt his work would be considerably heavier this year than it would be next year, and the same remark applied to the office of the President of the Council, who was charged with a Bill of a revolutionary character, which would entail considerable labour on him and his officers. Next year he might not have the same pressure. If the President of the Council was to be paid a fixed sum, whatever work he does, why should an exception be made in favour of the law officers? They had judges who had been engaged in private practice of an exceedingly lucrative character, worth £15,000 or £20,000 a year, if public rumour was to be credited, and yet they accepted positions in which they were paid only £5,000 a year. According to the Attorney General's own admission, his fees under the new arrangement were increased to the extent of £2,000 or £3,000. He dismissed entirely any idea of corrupt 362 motive; but, upon general principle, it was not fair that, when one set of Ministers were in, the law officers should be paid at a certain rate, and when another Party came into power the law officers should be paid at a different and higher rate.

§ MR. WARNER
said the Return was published in August, after the Estimates were done with, and the information was therefore stale. They were also told that counsel were employed, but he could not find mention of the fees.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
They are included in the business of the particular Departments.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
Cannot the Secretary to the Treasury give the figures?

§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER
said, there was nothing more recent than 1894–5 as to the sums received when the law officers of the Crown were employed for the different Departments. This year there would probably be a considerable amount for the Local Government Board.

§ *MR. HANBURY
said, he had always maintained that there should be the fullest explanation in regard to the Estimates, but it was a difficult thing to estimate these fees. The present system had only been in operation since July; this year's Estimate must, therefore, be a conjectural one. He agreed that all the data ought, as far as possible, to be brought up to date. But hon. Members did not quite realise the various steps necessary to be taken before the final Accounts were submitted to Parliament. The Estimates were laid on the Table in February for March, but the whole expenditure could not be known until after the close of the year. A great deal of work had to be gone through before the Accounts were finally submitted to the Audit Office, and they were not submitted to the Public Accounts Committee until the March or April of the year following the close of the financial year to which the accounts of expenditure had reference. Until the accounts of expenditure had been gone through, they could not present the accounts. He would, however, do his best to see that the return asked for was furnished as early as possible.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
urged that the clerks of the Law Officers could have given a summary of the fees in half-an hour.

§ *MR. HANBURY
The account of these payments is not rendered until it is in a final shape. Until that has been done, it is impossible to present accurate figures.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
thought that it might be possible, however, to get approximate figures. Unless there was an Estimate of that character it was impossible to know whether the Treasury Minute was being carried out.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I explained to the Committee the reason for the change, and the policy which the Government intended to adopt. No suggestion has been made that the Minute has not been carried out, and there is not the slightest ground for saying that the Minute has been departed from.

§ MR. J. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid)
said, this question had been before the House for many years past. The result of the discussions in previous years was that it was thought advisable in future to pay the Attorney General and the Solicitor General by fixed salary, in order that the whole of their services should be at the disposal of the Government, and in order that they should not compete in private practice.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Every piece of private practice is cut off.

§ MR. CALDWELL
admitted that it was not a question of competing in private practice, but it was thought desirable to pay the Law Officers a sufficient salary, so that there should not be any question between the Government and them as to fees even in connection with Government business. When the Liberals came into power this principle was established; but now the Government were beginning to introduce a new principle. He agreed that a statement could not be made as to what the extra fees of the Law Officers would be; they had to be earned; but, unfortunately, the Committee was in the dark as to the amount of fees they were now asking information upon. It might be £5,000 or £10,000. A reactionary Government was now in power, and proposed to go back upon the Arrangement made by the Liberal Administration. Against that hon. Mem- 364 bers were quite right to protest. The Government, with their majority of 150, might think that they could effect any change they pleased, regardless of the traditions of Parliament. But they could not expect to make the change proposed now without being criticised. The policy which they were reversing was accepted by the late Government in consequence of representations from the Tory Benches as well as from the Liberal Benches. The plan of giving fees would be very invidious. How was the amount of these fees to be determined? It would not be possible to arrive at an average based on the fees obtained by other counsel. Then, who was to determine whether a case was contentious or non-contentious? He should think that if it was necessary to consult the Attorney General at all in a matter, that matter must be contentious. In his opinion the Law Officers of the Crown ought to be paid by salary, and they ought to have a permanent office with a permanent staff. Then a new Attorney General would at once be able to ascertain what his predecessor bad done in any matter, and a certain amount of continuity in the country's legal business would be insured. Hon. Members had acted quite rightly in registering their protest against the course taken by the Government.

§ *MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH
said, he wished to bring other matters to the attention of the Attorney General. The first was that the Public Prosecutor was represented at all the election petitions that had recently taken place, and, though thousands of pounds were spent in that department, in not one single case had the Public Prosecutor done anything to carry out the law. The second matter was one that had already been mentioned in the House. It was in connection with the sittings of the Welsh Land Commission. Complaint was made to the Public Prosecutor that certain witnesses had been intimidated, and that official had refused to take any steps in 365 the matter. He wished to ask upon what evidence the Public Prosecutor came to that conclusion? The Act of 1892 for the protection of witnesses, as he understood it, permitted two defences to be made to a charge of this kind—first, that no intimidation took place, and secondly, that the evidence of the witnesses was not given bona fide. He wished to ask on which of these two grounds the Public Prosecutor refused to take steps in the matter? They had been informed that some steps had been taken to make inquiry, and he would like to know what steps had been taken.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
observed that neither of the Law Officers was present, although there had only been a discussion on one of the sub-heads of the Vote. As a protest, he begged to move to report progress.

§ *THE CHAIRMAN (MR. STUART-WORTLEY)
said that he did not think he would be justified in putting that Motion. The hon. Member was entitled to comment on the absence of the Law Officers, but it was in his discretion whether or not he put the Motion.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
, having just entered the House, apologised for his temporary absence, and proceeded to say that the attendance of counsel on behalf of the Public Prosecutor at the trial of election petitions was at present compulsory under certain statutes. He quite admitted that the expense incurred was out of all proportion to the benefit derived from it, consequently he had made arrangements for the introduction of a Bill which would dispense with the attendance of the representative of the Public Prosecutor, except in cases where it was really necessary. Recent experience had led him to believe that it was not necessary that there should be day by day a representative of the Public Prosecutor present in these trials, but he could be called in from time to time if necessary. With regard to the protection of witnesses, the hon. Member would remember that the matter was fully discussed not many nights ago, when his right hon. friend the Home Secretary explained why no steps had been taken in the way of prosecution. He himself had been into the whole of the evidence in these cases and he was quite satisfied that there was no primâ facie case on 366 which a prosecution could be instituted, and he was obliged to advise the Public Prosecutor to that effect.

§ *MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH
Was that the evidence given before the Land Commission or additional evidence procured since?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Both.

§ *MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH
May I ask what was the nature of the additional evidence?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
That is going a little beyond what ought to be asked. Inquiries were made into the actual conversations at the interview at which the intimidation was alleged to have taken place.

MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthen, W.)
said the point was whether a sufficient and adequate inquiry was made. No one doubted that the Attorney General came to a proper conclusion on the evidence that was before him, but it was necessary to go farther than that. The law, so far as he understood it, threw the onus of proving that a witness was intimidated and punished for giving evidence on the prosecution, and therefore, no doubt, some difficulty might arise, but that was all the more reason why a thorough and full inquiry should have been made as to the nature of the evidence. A very important issue was raised, and the question ought to have been sifted to the bottom. The Commissioners themselves, feeling the gravity of the question, informed the Home Secretary that these allegations had been made. They, at any rate, thought that a primâ facie case had been made out, and they came to an unanimous conclusion to that effect; and, in the face of that, he contended that the Government ought to have done more than they did. The Committee had not yet been told the nature of the Inquiry that was made. They did not know who went down into the locality, or whether he received any professional assistance, or saw the witnesses personally. The Home Secretary said the other day that a gentleman from the Treasury went down, and the Committee knew nothing more than that. He submitted that they were entitled to know more. What was the action of the Government in another case a short time ago? A year or two 367 ago there were several cases in connection with the tithe disturbances. In those cases the Government obtained the best professional assistance they could; no expense, no time, and no trouble were spared in order to get convictions. It was certainly of far greater importance that, when a man gives evidence before a Royal Commission, he should have the full protection of the law, than that a man should be prosecuted who happened to have committed some assault on a county court bailiff. Why was not the same trouble taken in regard to these cases? These men had been turned out of their homes on account of the evidence they gave, and yet the Government did not think it was worth while to make inquiry.

§ MR. VAUGHAN DAVIES (Cardigan)
was proceeding to deal with the evidence in a particular case, when,

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
The hon. Gentleman cannot go into individual cases. He can only show that the Public Prosecutor was guilty of negligence or refused to consider the cases.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
On a point of Order. Sir, I wish to ask—

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to argue with the Chair.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I was not arguing with the Chair. [Cries of "Order!"] The case my hon. Friend was about to refer to was one of the cases reported by the Commissioners to the Public Prosecutor; and it is because the Public Prosecutor did not interfere that we are complaining.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
That comes within the very point I decided.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
The Speaker has ruled differently.

§ MR. VAUGHAN DAVIES
, continuing, said that the action of the Public Prosecutor was a disgrace to the law of the country. The Commissioners were sent down into the country, the tenant farmers were asked to come forward and give evidence, and it was sheer hypocrisy and humbug on the part of the Public Prosecutor to refuse to interfere.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said that the hon. Gentleman had made an attack on the Public Prosecutor which 368 was not in any way justified. There was no official in any department who discharged his duties more conscientiously. He wished to explain that, the Commissioners having reported this matter, it came before the Public Prosecutor, who, being of opinion that there was no primâ facie case, so reported to the Home Secretary. His right hon. Friend took the same view that everyone would take, namely, that the fullest protection should be afforded to witnesses, and, therefore, he directed a local Inquiry. A full Inquiry was held, as far as he could gather, and all the evidence that could be obtained was taken. That evidence, by the direction, of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, was submitted to him, and he, not having the least idea that any question of the kind was going to be raised in Parliament, read most carefully the whole of the evidence, and upon it came to the conclusion that there was no primâ facie case at all. He had every reason to believe that the usual course was taken by the Public Prosecutor in these cases, which was that, either on his own responsibility or on the direction of the Home Secretary, he made a full inquiry into the circumstances to see whether he would be justified in putting anyone on his trial. What the Public Prosecutor required was what every magistrate required—that he should be able to lay before the Court a primâ facie case.

§ SIR JOHN LLEWELLYN (Swansea Town)
said that the Commissioners carefully listened to every case brought before them, and where they thought there was a primâ facie case they laid it before the Public Prosecutor. Some other cases were discussed before the present Government came into Office, in the autumn of 1894 and 1895. It was very easy to make allegations, but it was not so easy always to prove them; and he believed it was an elementary principle of English Law that a man should be considered innocent until he was proved to be guilty. It was for that reason that the Commissioners had declined to make public the names of the supposed offenders until a case could be brought into the Law Courts.

§ *MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH
said that the Commissioners had unanimously agreed that there was a primâ facie case against 369 the landlords in question, and he wanted to know what inquiry had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for the purpose of obtaining additional evidence, and what steps the Public Prosecutor had taken in the matter. The House ought to know how the Public Prosecutor had endeavoured to carry out his duty. Had the Public Prosecutor been upon the spot to make inquiries for himself?

*MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea District)
said that as a Member of the Commission he had intended to take no part in this Debate, and that he only rose because he did not think that the observations of the hon. Baronet opposite, his colleague on the Commission, adequately represented the action which the Commissioners had taken in the matter. Two classes of cases had come before the Commissioners. In the first place the Commissioners had been going to many towns in Wales for the purpose of obtaining evidence, and a large number of tenant farmers had given evidence. More than one of the witnesses afterwards came to them and complained that they had received notice to quit their farms or sustained loss as they alleged in consequence of the evidence which they had given before the Commission. The Commissioners unanimously decided to accept the evidence of the tenants upon this subject, whilst they were taking the other local evidence. They pointed out that they had no power to try the cases, but that they could hear the evidence. The Commissioners having sent notice to the landlords who were complained of, accordingly heard the evidence and came to the conclusion to submit that evidence to the Public Prosecutor, but at the same time offered no opinion whatever as to the final effect of that evidence. The Public Prosecutor declined to prosecute, and upon the action of that official he did not desire now to expresss any opinion. The second batch of cases arose in this way: after the Commission had concluded their sittings and had practically finished taking evidence, they received letters from certain of the witnesses stating that they had since giving evidence before the Commission, received from their landlords notice to quit without adequate reasons being given. The Commissioners then 370 had to consider what their course should be, and they arrived at the conclusion that it was not expedient to re-open the Inquiry, but that they would lay the communications before the Home Secretary himself. The right hon. Gentleman had treated those communications with the utmost courtesy, and expressed his determination to do everything he possibly could to support the tenants if their allegations were found to be correct. The Commissioners, however, were entirely in the dark as to the nature of the Inquiry which the Home Secretary had directed to be made into the matter. The Commissioners thought it better, in the interests of public justice, not to publish the names of either the landlords or the tenants concerned. He was quite sure that the hon. Baronet opposite would entirely concur in the remarks he had made.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,) Lancashire, Blackpool
said that the hon. Member for Swansea District had stated the case very fairly. It was perfectly true that the hon. Gentleman and the Chairman of the Commission had come to the Home Office and had made a communication to him with reference to three cases with regard to which they had received evidence which in their opinion made out a primâ facie case against certain landlords. The matter was referred by him to the Public Prosecutor, who, having all facts and evidence before him, as fully stated by the Royal Commission, came to the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to justify any person being put upon his trial. As it appeared to him to be of the greatest importance that the witnesses before the Commission should receive the most complete protection, he himself looked very closely into the evidence, and he had come to the conclusion that it was necessary to make further inquiries into the foundation for the complaints that these tenants had made against their landlords, and consequently he had referred the matter back to the Public Prosecutor with instructions that a local Inquiry should be held, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was legal evidence forthcoming that would justify him in instituting a prosecution. A local inquiry was then ordered by the Public 371 Prosecutor to be held upon the spot, with the view of ascertaining whether there was such evidence forthcoming that would justify him and the Secretary of State in directing that a trial should take place. When the results of the Inquiry were communicated to the Public Prosecutor, he was still of opinion that no case had been made out, and his opinion was confirmed by that of the Attorney General. In these circumstances he could but think that the Public Prosecutor had done his duty.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said, that they had at all events succeeded in eliciting from the right hon. Gentleman that the Public Prosecutor had sent down to the locality to make an Inquiry into the matter of these charges.

§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
said that as he had already stated, the Public Prosecutor had sent down to make local inquiries.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said, that if the Public Prosecutor had sent down a man from his own office to make the inquiries, there was no doubt that the Inquiry would have been an impartial one, but if an agent upon the spot were employed to make the inquiries, he might have had some connection with the landlords against whom the complaints were made.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said that he really could not say whether the gentleman who made the inquiries was a local man or not, but certainly the Public Prosecutor wrote to the persons implicated and asked for their account of the matter.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that it was clear that neither the Home Secretary nor the Attorney-General even now knew how the Inquiry was conducted. As far as hon. Members on that side were concerned, not a single case had been referred to which could not be seen in the printed evidence of the Royal Commission. He did not know the names of any other witnesses, and no confidences had been divulged to him. In these cases which were inquired into by the Commissioners—he believed in every case except one—the landlords themselves or their agents appeared to refute the charges made by the tenants, and notwithstanding that fact, the Commissioners came to the conclusion that there was a primâ facie case for the 372 prosecution. These men who, they alleged, had been intimidated were Welshmen, and he wished to know whether the gentleman sent down by the Public Prosecutor was able to carry on an intelligent conversation with these people in their own language. [Laughter.] That seemed to be a subject for merriment to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but suppose an analogous case had occurred in the Transvaal between the Boers and the Uitlanders, what would hon. Members opposite have said then? These men could not carry on a conversation in the English language. He should like to know, also, how this inquiry was conducted. Did the agent of the Director of Public Prosecutions go to the landlords or their agents? [Sir R. WEBSTER shook his head.] Then, although the Commissioners heard the evidence not merely of the tenants, but of the landlords, this gentleman went down and simply got the evidence of those who brought the charge, and yet came, curiously enough, to a conclusion contrary to that of the Commissioners—namely, that there was no case for prosecution. The function of the Public Prosecutor was not that of a Judge, but was to decide whether there was a case for investigation before a Court. It was not his function to give a verdict. What was the evidence given before the Land Commission?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
asked if the hon. Member was justified in going into the facts of the evidence, which facts were not before him.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
said the cases could not be narrated. The hon. Member must limit himself to an endeavour to show negligence on the part of the Public Prosecutor, or a corrupt exercise of his functions.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he was simply going to give a suppositious case. He would suppose the case of a witness who, shortly after giving evidence before the Commission, received notice to quit, and was told by the landlord's agent that the reason for that notice was the evidence which he had given; ought there not in such a case to have been a public prosecution. He should like to know whether the agent who went down there lived on the spot, or was an impartial person, absolutely unconnected with the 373 district and its associations. He begged to move a reduction of £1,000 in the Vote under Item H, in respect of the salary of the Public Prosecutor.

§ MR. VAUGHAN DAVIES
was understood to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would now, or at some future time, state the name of the agent employed by the Public Prosecutor to inquire into the case of the tenants evicted in Cardiganshire.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTS
said, in his opinion there was nothing which would justify the action in regard to two of the persons mentioned.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said there was no third person.

§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
said there were three cases put before him. With regard to two of them he thought there was no case for further inquiry, but with reference to the third case, in which two persons were implicated, he thought, contrary to the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, that in order to be quite safe, it was desirable to see whether there was a case for inquiry or not.

MR. HERBERT ROBERTS
thought some more satisfactory explanation ought to be given as to the character of this local Inquiry, as to who was sent down, and whether he had local knowledge of the circumstances.

§ MR. J. CALDWELL
said he should like to know whether the result of the second Inquiry which was made was antagonistic to the evidence given before the Commission, and whether it showed that evidence to be untrue.

§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
pressed the right hon. Gentleman to state whether the agent of the Director of Public Prosecutions understood the Welsh language. On the general question he only desired to say that hundreds of Welsh farmers who would have been glad to have given evidence before the Commission felt themselves unable to do so owing to the fears which they entertained as to the results of giving evidence. He appreciated to the full the assurance that the Attorney General and the Home Secretary had given with regard to their desire that the Witnesses Protection Act should not be a dead letter, but the question was whether that 374 Act was to be a deal letter or not, whether witnesses were in future to be able to rely upon the Act as a protection. This was a matter which went to the very root of the Royal Commissions that they held in various parts of the country, and particularly with regard to a delicate and difficult question like the land question. The farmer who might have grievances to bring forward saw his whole living trembling in the balance, and unless he felt that he had the force of the law behind him he would not venture to give evidence. He hoped the Home Secretary and Attorney General were fully impressed with the importance of the subject, and also with the importance of having an Inquiry conducted in the language which the people themselves understood.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
thought the Welsh Members were entitled to a specific statement from the Attorney General. Did the gentleman in question understand the language of the people? Was he a local agent, and, if so, was he interested or implicated in the estates charged? And how was the inquiry conducted? They ought also to have the name of the gentleman who conducted the Inquiry.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said that he did not know whether the man in question could speak Welsh or not. He did not know whether he was a local agent or not. But after having perused the evidence transcribed from shorthand, it appeared to him that the questions were exhaustive and were put, as he thought, with a desire to elicit the truth. If it was any satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman, he would find out whether he was a local agent and whether he could speak the Welsh language. [AN HON. MEMBER: ''And his name!"] It would be contrary to all precedent to give the name. The name could have no bearing on the real elucidation of the investigation, and it could only be wanted for other purposes. With regard to the evidence given at the supplemental Inquiry, he came distinctly to the conclusion that no magistrate would have regarded the statements made as being of a character in respect of which the law could be enforced.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
called attention to two items, one of £25 for an Admiralty agent at Malta, and one of £20 for a similar agent at Lisbon. Were these survivors of the old prize agents? If not, what were their duties? If prize agents they ought to be abolished.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I am not able to tell my hon. Friend. I have a recollection of this matter being raised some years ago; but I shall make inquiries.

§ MR. J. H. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)
observed an item of £100 in connection with the Judge Advocate General, with a foot-note that the item would be reconsidered when there was a vacancy. Who was the holder of the office just now.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
mentioned a name which was not heard in the Gallery. As to the Counsel to the Judge Advocate General, he was understood to say that the office had long been held by an hon. Member of that House.

§ DR. TANNER (Cork, Mid)
was speaking on criminal prosecutions when he was ruled out of order.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUARTWORTLEY)
put the Vote, and declared that the ''Ayes'' had it.

§ DR. TANNER (standing in his place)
The "Noes" have it.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
The hon. Member must resume his seat.

§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
said he noticed an item of £180 for the salary of the Auditor of Sheriffs' Accounts in 376 Wales. He would like to be informed of the duties of the officer; why such an officer was appointed for Wales; and whether it would not be possible, in the interests of the ratepayers, to procure his retirement.

§ *MR. HANBURY
said it was intended to discontinue, the office when it was vacated by the present holder. If that officer were now retired, he would get abolition terms—against which the House had, in recent years, set its face—so that there would be no advantage in such a course.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that if this officer discharged any useful public function, there would be no objection, so far as the Welsh Members were concerned, to the payment of this salary of £180, especially if he were a Welshman. But they would like to know something of the duties of the office.

§ *MR. HANBURY
said that in the case of English Sheriffs the accounts were remitted direct to the Treasury for revision. But in the case of Wales there was this special auditor who checked all the accounts of sheriffs' officers before they were forwarded to the Treasury. Half the accounts submitted were for the expenses of lodging Judges on circuit. If hon. Members thought it was an advantage to have a strict revision of charges, they could not in this matter complain of an injustice to Wales, because Wales had the advantage, not shared by England, of having a special officer to revise accounts before they were remitted to the Treasury.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
thought the office was a survival of the old sinecure posts which were created, not because there were any duties to be discharged, but because there might be places for the friends of big magnates. He noticed that this auditor had, in addition to his salary of £180 for doing nothing, two pensions—one as an officer of Woods and Forests, and the other as a receiver of hereditary revenues. The sooner this office was abolished the better.

§ MR. WARNER
asked why the Vote showed an increase on last year?

§ MR. CALDWELL
said that the cost of lodging Judges on circuit in Scotland was paid locally, whereas in England it was defrayed out of the Imperial Exchequer. He thought that now, when there was a question of the proportion 377 in which Imperial grants should be allocated to England, Scotland, and Ireland, it should be made clear in the interest of Scotland that the allowance which England received from the Imperial Estimates in respect to the expenses of lodging Judges on circuit was not extended to Scotland. He would protest against all such injustices to Scotland whenever they cropped up.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
moved: "That Item C, for the County of London Sessions Salaries be omitted from the proposed Vote," on the ground that the London County Council, like all other County Councils, should provide their own Quarter Sessions officers. He would also like to know what was meant by assistant Judges, who were paid five guineas a day. He thought those appointments should be absolutely impartial, and he would like to know by whom they were made.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
hoped the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to go to a Division. The present state of things was the result of an arrangement made under Statute, and would be reconsidered as soon as the present Judge ceased to hold office. By the 22nd and 23rd Vict., a barrister of recognised standing was appointed at £5 5s. a day to act temporarily in the absence of the assistant Judge. Until a new arrangement was made, the present payment must be made.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
asked how the assistant Judges were appointed. Were they appointed when there was a pressure of business, in the court, and who were they appointed by? If he went to a Division, he would simply go as a protest against the system of subsidising London in respect to police, courts, of quarter sessions, public parks, and the like.

§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER
believed that the assistant Judge was appointed by the Judge, and was generally a barrister of long standing, who did not practise in the court at all. The hon. Gentleman was wrong in stating that the London parks were paid for entirely by the country. They were paid for, to a small extent, by the country. The Royal parks—

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
Order, order! The Com- 378 mittee is not now dealing with the Royal Parks.

§ MR. CALDWELL
said the real question was that whilst the assistant Judge received a salary for doing the work, they had to pay the deputy assistant judges to do the work for him. It might be that they could not make a change as far as the assistant Judge was concerned, but what obligation was Parliament under to provide deputy assistant Judges?

§ MR. H. C. RICHARDS (Finsbury, E.)
said it was perfectly true that the temporary appointment was in the hands of the learned Judge who presided at the court, but the hon. Member for Carnarvon was mistaken in supposing that a barrister who practised in that court was ever asked to sit. It was absolutely necessary to have a second court constantly sitting at the sessions, because there was more than sufficient work to keep the Judge employed. It would be a great expense to the country and also to the Treasury if the second court did not sit.

§ DR. CLARK
thought that as what was now paid by Parliament would shortly be paid by London his hon. Friend would be well advised if he withdrew his Amendment.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that as he had received the assurance of the Attorney General that this was purely a temporary arrangement, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of going through the Lobby.

§ MR. JOHN BRIGG (York, W. R., Keighley)
asked for an explanation of the item of £200 put down as compensation to certain Clerks of the Peace of quarter sessions boroughs for loss of fees.

§ MR. HANBURY
said that under the Act of 1888, the charges for Clerks of the Peace were transferred from the Votes to the rates, except in the cases of certain boroughs which were not made county boroughs. There were only two cases left in England and one in Ireland, and, of course, they were expiring cases. The payment would lapse on the death or retirement of the present holders, or in case the boroughs were at any time made county boroughs.

§ *MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH
called attention to the case of Dr. Herz, who, he said, was still lying dangerously ill at 379 Bournemouth. A fugitive from French justice, Dr. Herz had been for three years on the brink of death, closely attended by representatives of British justice. Medical certificates showed conclusively that the man was not likely to recover, and, under such circumstances, would the Attorney General inform the Committee what expense had been incurred in the case? To call Dr. Herz a fugitive was ridiculous; he was confined to bed, and likely to be as long as he lived. Under these circumstances the Committee was entitled to an explanation and to a justification of the expenditure.

§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
said, the papers had recently contained a report of the examination that had taken place in the case of the unfortunate Dr. Herz. That examination had been held owing to a fresh demand on the part of the French Government, a previous one having been withdrawn. The expenses that had been incurred in the case had been £865 in 1894–95 and £166 in 1895–96. These expenses were incurred under treaty obligations with the French Government, and the critical state of the health of Dr. Herz had rendered it necessary to obtain competent medical advice. The French Government had demanded the recent examination.

§ Dr. TANNER
said the case had been dragging out too long, and, contrasting it with that of Dr. Jameson, he asked why there should be one law for a rich man and another for a poor man. Some French friends of his had recently told him that what we were doing in this case would be likely to provoke retaliation. Why should not the case be dealt with definitely once for all?

§ DR CLARK
wished for further information. The House had passed a special Bill giving a magistrate power to hear a case like this. Were they to understand that the recent examination in the sick chamber at Bournemouth was the result of the passing of that Act two 380 years ago? The intention of the Act was to enable an examination to be held in absence of the accused.

§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
There was a proposal to put that power in the Bill, but Parliament declined to do it.

§ DR. CLARK
asked whether any further expense would be incurred. Everything had been done to comply with the wishes of the French Government; if anything, we had gone too far, and persecuted the man. To a certain extent we were bound to do it; but were we going to incur further expense? Were we going to keep a detective watching Dr. Herz constantly, or were we going to be guided by the evidence of medical experts, who told us that Dr. Herz was suffering from heart disease, and that it was utterly impossible for him to be moved?

§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
said, he earnestly hoped no more expense would be incurred. He was conscious there had been a great deal too much already, although it had been called for, partly under our treaty obligations and partly by merciful consideration for Dr. Herz himself. In pursuance of the recent Act Dr. Herz had been examined in his own house by the Chief Magistrate at Bow Street. The Home Office had previously had the opinions of two eminent medical men. Having taken a certain amount of evidence, the magistrate adjourned the case, and, when it was resumed, he trusted a decision would be arrived at. If the magistrate should be of opinion that there was a prima facie case, Dr. Herz would remain in confinement, but he hoped that no expense would need to be incurred in looking after him. For a long period he had been left to the charge of his own medical man, and, as he was suffering from disease of the heart, he was not likely to be moved. Whatever the result might be, he trusted that no further expense would have to be incurred.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not given 381 a satisfactory explanation of the fact that he and his predecessors had allowed the case to go on for three years, during which this man had been a sufferer.

§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
He has been too ill to be removed.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
Why should not the prosecution have been withdrawn?

§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
It is for the French Government to withdraw it. We simply fulfil our treaty obligations with France.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I do not believe that any treaty compels us to persecute a man who is suffering from heart disease and is on the brink of death by placing a policeman at his door.

§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
There is no policeman at the door; he is solely in charge of his own doctor.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said, the information given him was that there was a policeman in constant attendance; but he would accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that it was not the case.

§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
Certainly. For some time, and until my predecessor satisfied himself that there was no kind of collusion and no intention to evade justice, we were bound to maintain a watch; but for a very considerable period there has been no officer there.

§ *MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH
asked how so large a sum had been spent.

§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
was afraid he could not divide the expenditure; but it had been necessary to employ medical experts, and they did not go down to Bournemouth for nothing.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said, he was satisfied with the explanation as to the non-attendance of a police officer.

§ MR. DALZIEL
said he wished to raise two points in connection with the Railway and Canal Commission and ask whether the Government had any inten- 382 tion of carrying out the understanding come to, if not a promise made, during the late Parliament, that a third Commissioner should be appointed who would represent more adequately than the present Commissioners did the trading and commercial interests of the country. Chambers of commerce and commercial men complained that the interests of trade and commerce were not better represented on the Commission. The hon. Member also asked whether something could not be done to expedite the proceedings of the Commission. It took from 12 months to two or three years to get a case tried and decided by the Commission.

§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
said the points raised by his hon. Friend were extremely important. Whenever hon. Members brought overcharges by railway companies before Parliament the answer always was that traders could appeal to the Railway and Canal Commissioners. To tell the ordinary trader this was a mockery, because the expense of appealing was enormous. He found that of 104 cases that had been brought before the Commission during the year only nine had been decided. On page after page of the Report of the Commission he found against cases the remark "case pending." He hoped the Attorney-General would give the Committee an explanation of the extremely small number of cases that had been decided.

§ The ATTORNEY GENERAL
said he never before heard it suggested that a third Commissioner should be appointed. It had been suggested that one of the two Commissioners might more directly represent commercial interests, but even upon that opinion was not unanimous. He had had 20 years' experience of the Court, and he did not think it could be better constituted than it was now. Many of the cases entered and to which the remark "case pending" was attached in the report were not intended to be tried separately, but together with others, and the trial of the case was often delayed 383 by the necessity for settling preliminary matters. As soon, however, as cases were ripe for trial they were brought to trial. He believed the work of the Commission, both of a judicial kind and that done outside in negotiations on agreements and dealing with business of a non-contentious character, was well performed, and that there had not been much delay except where cases had to stand over until there had been a discussion of leading principles.
After the usual interval, Mr. GRANT LAWSON (York, N. R., Thirsk), took the Chair.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said, the explanation which had been given by the Attorney-General did not meet the point under discussion. Many of the cases brought before the Railway Commission involved principles of a very different character. He had gone through the list, though only cursorily, and he had been unable to find any case involving principles that affected a dozen, or at the most, a score of other cases. But out of 140 cases in the list only nine were heard and disposed of. The disadvantage experienced was caused by the fact that the number of the sittings of the Commission was not sufficient or continuous. It had been said that a Judge of the High Court lent assistance to the Commissioners, but he should like to know how many times that Judge had sat on the Commission during the past year. His information was that the Judge had sat only a small number of times, and that it was impossible, under existing conditions, to dispose of all the cases in a reasonable time. The question was of very great importance to the trade of the country. ["Hear, hear!"] Taking the matter on the Report for the last year, if the traders had followed the advice of the Government, they would have had to meet a very powerful railway combination, and would have had to wait two or three years before their cases were heard at all. He would suggest as a remedy for the congestion 384 of business before the Commission that Section 31 of the Act of 1888 should be put into operation. The expenses and costs involved by taking cases to London prohibited traders in the country from having their cases heard. The inquiries ought to be conducted on the spot.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said that on application being made the Commission sat out of London and frequently did so.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that might be so, but his grievance was that the Commissioners did not go down into the country like Judges of Assize to investigate cases on the spot. In order to arrive at the real facts of a case, and the surrounding circumstances, it would be far better than the present course of procedure if the Commission went down to the localities and, without the aid of counsel and lawyers investigated the facts and allowed the traders to present their cases in their own way. He repeated that as long as it was made necessary that cases should be brought before the Commission in London, the means of obtaining justice were really prohibitive to the trader, for the costs and expenses were tenfold more heavy than if the cases were heard in the country. ["Hear, hear!"] His suggestion, in order to meet this difficulty of expense and congestion of the work, was that two or three courts should be appointed, and that on the application of a certain number of traders the Commissioners should travel over the country like Judges of Assize at the present time. It might be urged that the appointment of one or more additional Commissioners would involve considerable expense, but as the matter was one which affected the trading interests of the whole country, and as by the adoption of such a course the trader would more readily obtain justice, he felt confident that no hon. Member would object to the necessary expenditure. Why the whole expense of the Commission might amount to one-third of 385 the cost of the Law Officers of the Crown. It was not too much to ask the country to vote three or four times the present sum if it were necessary. The Commission was blocked by contests between different railway companies as to who was to pocket the rate; and justice to the trader, who claimed a reduced rate, ought not to be delayed by such contests. The proper means should be taken to divide the work more, and the only way to do it was to appoint additional Commissioners. Delay in law always meant expense for the client; and litigation before the Railway Commission was really worse than before the Court of Chancery. The traders ought to be given an inexpensive means of obtaining speedy justice. The maintenance of an excessive rate for even a year might have the effect of crippling an industry, and once an industry was driven away, it was very difficult to restore it. He begged to move, "That Item F, for the Railway and Canal Commission, be reduced by £100."

§ MR. J. SAMUEL (Stockton-on-Tees)
asked for information as to Section 31 of the Act of 1888, which related to complaints to the Board of Trade by individual traders.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said that the section referred to was the conciliation section, and the proceedings under it would not appear in the Report of the Railway Commissioners, but in the annual Report of the Board of Trade.

§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
thought that the Attorney General ought to give some reply to the important question raised by his hon. Friend. He wished to know whether the Commissioners gave their whole time to the work of the Commission.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said that the standing Commissioners did give the whole of their time to the work. They had a great deal of work which did not come into Court at all; and sometimes they could sit alone in Court. 386 When they sat in full Court Mr. Justice Collins sat with them.

§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
said that if a single trader wished to bring his case before the Commission, the distance, expense and delay were practically prohibitive. Why could not a number of sub-commissioners be appointed, as was done in the case of the Irish Land Acts? The consequence of employing Commissioners at £3,000 a year to deal with every little case was that only cases of the greatest magnitude, in which rich corporations were involved, could be brought before the Railway Commissioners. When a trader had a quarrel with a railway company, the company made him settle his accounts from day to day; so that while the case was being settled—and that might take a year or more—the trader was paying the higher rate. He, therefore, urged that sub-commissioners under the Railway Commission should be appointed. Only 109 cases had been disposed of last year, and according to the hon. Gentleman's own admission a large number of these cases were duplicate cases, only 34 being separate cases. It is quite obvious that the Commission did not give that relief which it ought to give. They did not want the Railway and Canal Traffic Act to remain a dead letter. Moreover, they wanted the Commission to be something more than a means to enable two wealthy and powerful corporations to fight each other over the carcases of districts of which they wanted to get the monopoly.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the appointment of Sub-Commissioners would require legislation.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
dissented from that view, and said the Railway Commissioners were perfectly competent to appoint additional Commissioners.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
I assure the hon. Gentleman he is wrong. There are to be only two Commissioners under the Act.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES
called attention to a subject which he had laboured at and denounced year after year—the Wreck Commission. He was sorry not to see the First Lord of the Treasury [laughter] (caused by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was seated just under the hon. Member). Well, the right hon. Gentleman had told them that discussion of the Estimates never produced any good results.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
In the matter of economy.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES
Yet I hope to see the day when my repeated denunciations, loyally supported by the Secretary of the Treasury—[laughter]—will have produced good fruit, and the cost of these wreck inquiries will be reduced by the cost of the Wreck Commissioners.

§ *Mr. HANBURY
thought his hon. Friend would be glad to hear that his gallant efforts in connection with past years had been successful, and that the Wreck Commissioners' office ceased to exist some time ago. The last two officials of the Wreck Commissioners' Court had been disposed of during the past year. The Wreck Commissioner had disappeared and his officials had gone with him, or perhaps he should say that they had gone to better places. [Laughter.] One of these two officials had gone to the Treasury, and the other to the Probate Court. His hon. Friend deserved the thanks of the country for having saved it about £1,000 a year. The credit which was due to his hon. Friend he thought he might be allowed to share to some extent [laughter], for he had supported the hon. Member in his efforts to effect an economy in connection with this matter.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, tint his hon. Friend had told the Committee that 388 the two officials to whom he had referred had gone to better places. He trusted that it was with worse salaries.

§ DR. CLARK
observed that the Act creating the Wreck Commission was passed by a Conservative Government in 1876, and that the Court had done some remarkably good work. Sailors in the North were very dissatisfied that another Wreck Commissioner had not been appointed. They complained that these inquiries were no longer held before a competent official of large experience, and that they were sometimes held before local justices of the peace, who would be interested parties as shipowners or shareholders in trading companies. These cases were sometimes heard before stipendiary magistrates, with whose decisions the sailors and firemen were generally satisfied. But with the intervention of ordinary justices of the peace in these cases there was great dissatisfaction among the sailors. A large number of assessors were unfortunately masters of merchant ships and superintendents of ship companies. The sailors ought to be represented on these courts of inquiry. He regretted very much that the Wreck Commissioners Court had been abolished, and hoped that it would be reconstituted, and that a Commissioner would be appointed who would devote himself entirely to this work. The stipendiary magistrates were paid £500 a year for doing the work; the fees to magistrates' clerks amounted to £600 a year; £3,400 was paid to the assessors, and £750 went for travelling expenses. So a large sum was still being spent in connection with this work, and though the shipowners would be satisfied with the present system, the sailors and firemen whose lives were jeopardised by unseaworthy or undermanned vessels were not. It was a mistake to have got rid of an impartial tribunal in which the sailors had confidence, and he could not congratulate the right hon. Member opposite on the change which had been effected.

CAPTAIN-BETHELL (York, E. R., Holderness)
supposed that the hon. Member for King's Lynn was only striving to master the technicalities of debate when he made his attacks upon the Wreck Commission in previous Sessions. He was dismayed at the lamentable result of his hon. Friend's efforts. After all, the Wreck Commissioner's work was extremely important, and it was work that ought only to be performed by someone thoroughly versed in the business of these inquiries. The matters dealt with were largely professional and technical matters, and it was therefore to be regretted that the Wreck Commissioner was to be replaced by ordinary magistrates. He doubted whether they would command the same confidence as the Wreck Commissioner had always enjoyed.

§ MR. CALDWELL
pointed out that there was an item of £25,403 on the Vote for revising barristers in England, and complained that there was no corresponding grant for Scotland, where the money was provided locally. It was the existence of inequalities of this kind that made it imperative that they should press on the inquiry into the financial relations of the Three Kingdoms. He was aware that half of this sum of £25,000 was paid out of the local rates, but there remained £12,000 which was paid out of the Imperial Exchequer.

§ DR. CLARK
said, that in his view several of the items in this Vote ought to be reduced. There was the item of £1,800 for the salary of the Lord Chancellor's Secretary. The Committee which sat to consider the subject had recom- 390 mended that the salary should be reduced to £900, but, notwithstanding that fact, it had been increased from £1,500 to £1,800. This gentleman, moreover, was one of the pluralists, and held other appointments, to which salaries of £500 and £300 respectively were attached. There were some 40 or 50 other gentlemen in exactly the same position.

§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)
said that he thought that a good deal of the money asked for by this Vote was neither well nor wisely spent. They found that at the present time various important Courts in London were not sitting because there were no Judges to preside over them. Why should they keep up the machinery of those Courts and pay all the salaries of the officials attached to them if the Courts did not sit. He belonged to a party which had always described itself as the party of law and order. If they were the party of law and order, they should take care their legal procedure was carried on with expedition. At the present moment, for reasons which he could not allude to, there were not sufficient Judges to do the work of the country, and causes were eight and nine months in arrears, while the officials had no work to do, because the Courts were not sitting. What would be thought of that House were they to pay the salaries of all their officials without their having a Speaker or a Chairman of Committees to preside over its proceedings. The chief commercial causes of the country were tried in London, and the Attorney General himself had admitted that the legal business in London was very much in arrear. It was rather hard upon the numerous London Members who were supporters of the present Administration that they should have to ask that the judicial business of the Metropolis should be carried out in a proper manner. He would not refer to other items of the Vote, because they would come on for consideration at a later time.

§ MR. DALZIEL
said, that he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £300, which the Lord Chancellor's Secretary received as a Clerk in Chancery. It was not so very long ago since the hon. Member for King's Lynn and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury occupied the greater part of an evening in pointing out the iniquity of the large salaries that many of these officials enjoyed. If the hon. Gentleman doubted the accuracy of his statement he could easily refer to the Debates, because he held them in his hand and could show them to the hon. Gentleman. He maintained that those hon. Gentlemen were quite right in the course which they formerly took in relation to the matter. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had pointed out with great force that it was against sound principle to give one man two posts, because he could not be in two places at once, and, therefore, he must neglect one or other of his duties, and that it was his intention in every instance in which the salary of a pluralist was concerned, to bring the matter forward and to take a Division upon it. It was, therefore, only right that the right hon. Member should explain to the House how he reconciled his present conduct in asking the Committee to agree to this Vote with his former professions. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman now that he was in office to carry out his views with regard to pluralists. In order to give the hon. Member an opportunity of answering the questions that he had put to him, he begged to move to reduce the Vote by £300.

§ DR. CLARK
said, that the salary of the Lord Chancellor's Secretary had been raised from time to time since 1887 from £900 to £1,800. He did not see what justification there could be for this doubling of the salary. There was no doubt that this official was greatly overpaid.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES
said, he still maintained the objection which he had always held to pluralists in the Civil Service, and he earnestly wished he could obtain an opportunity of dealing with the question, not piecemeal but altogether. Neither under the last nor under the present Government, however, had he had an opportunity of 392 doing so. The hon. Member opposite had tried to deprive him of some of his laurels in regard to this matter, but he was the sole patentee.

§ DR. CLARK
It was done by the late Mr. Jennings before.

*MR. GIBSON BOWLES
No, Sir, nothing of the kind. He had moved for a return on the subject and obtained it, and before that no such return had ever been obtained. His return had comprised every source of income from the public funds. He had had compassion on the late Government and had not pressed the question to a Division two or three times, and he did not think it would be right to press it now, but if he could get an opportunity of dealing with the whole subject he was quite prepared to back up his opinions by going into the Division Lobby against his own friends. This official was one of numerous followers of the Lord Chancellor who were very highly paid.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)
said, he did not wish to depreciate the services of this official to the Lord Chancellor or to the country, but he did wish to say that his services were neither so skilled nor were his hours so long as those of the stipendiary magistrates of London, the clerk to the London School Board, or the clerk to the London County Council, and yet this official would receive the usual Civil Service retiring pension which was not given to either of the two clerks he had named, and was not given in the same proportions to the magistrates. Either the magistrate was underpaid, which he did not believe, or this gentleman was considerably overpaid. He was convinced that he was overpaid, because the House of Commons in the past had not thought it worth while to criticise the excessive salaries of these deadheads, who, somehow or other, fixed themselves on the legal offices like barnacles to the bottom of a ship. He sincerely trusted that when this office became vacant the salary would be considerably reduced.

§ MR. CALDWELL
pointed out that those officials who were appointed under this Vote had not passed any examination as Civil Servants. The appointment in this, and indeed in all these cases, was simply by nomination without a competitive examination. These posts were regarded as a means of bestowing 393 good berths on private secretaries and others.

§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
said, the question which had been raised was one of principle, and he hoped that they would hear what the views of the Government were with reference to pluralism in the Civil Service. This case seemed to be rather an aggravated one, because the Lord Chancellor had a private secretary in addition to this official. The House of Commons was rapidly making up its mind to deal with this question of pluralism in the Civil Service. Let one man occupy one office, and receive one salary in respect of that office.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the complaint made was not much encouragement to those who had tried to effect economies in the public interests. This was not the case of a pluralist at all. There was an office which was paid £1,000 a year, and in 1885 the Government saw their way to a substantial economy by getting the work done for £300 a year. To do this they raised the salary of an officer who had been receiving £1,500 to £1,800. That was the principal secretary to the Lord Chancellor, who now performed the duties of the abolished office. The hon. Member for Battersea had run wild on this occasion. He said the work would be better done by persons paid at a lower rate.

§ MR. BURNS
said, that he did not intend to depreciate the technical qualifications of this gentleman, but he objected to the salary paid for the work to be done. He was merely giving the future Lord Chancellor a hint that he would be expected to make a clean sweep of these undesirable offices.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, that he thought the hon. Member could not know what duties this officer had to perform. The hon. Member for Lanark, who had a suddenly-awakened zeal for discussing all English questions of which he had no knowledge—["Hear, hear!" and laughter]—had said that this gentleman could not pass a simple Civil Service examination, and had no qualifications. Well, no one could occupy the position who was not a barrister of ten years' standing, and, in view of what was now necessary before a man could be called, and of the expenses of being ten 394 years at the Bar, no reasonable man would contend that that was no qualification. The principal secretary to the Lord Chancellor was practically the drafter and settler of all the rules of the Supreme Court. He was the confidential negotiator between all the Judges and the Lord Chancellor; he had to do with all the lunacy business of the Lord Chancellor; he had to act as secretary to the Rule Committee and to the Council of Judges, and to draft and revise all the orders of the Supreme Court and the County Courts; and he had to examine all the Parliamentary Bills of a legal character, and to conduct many confidential communications between the head of the legal profession and its members. No doubt there were many Members of the House who felt equal to discharging all those efficiently for a much smaller salary—["Hear, hear!" and laughter]—but it was mistaken advocacy to run a tilt at such an office, and suggest that the salary was too large, knowing the kind of ability and discretion required for the performance of the duties, and knowing what income would be commanded by a gentleman fit to discharge those duties. As the hon. Member for Caithness had said, this question was first raised by the late Mr. Jennings, to whom many of the minor economies were due. But he spoke advisedly when he said that, in his opinion, the Lord Chancellor's staff had been reduced almost to a minimum, and could not be further reduced with proper regard to efficiency. He did not believe that, in the interest of efficiency, the staff could be further reduced. Whether, therefore, the Committee looked to the duties or the qualifications of this gentleman, he submitted that the salary paid to him was not too high for what he had to do.

§ MR. DALZIEL
was disappointed that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not ask the Secretary to the Treasury to defend this Vote, because then the Committee would have received a definition from the right hon. Gentleman of what a pluralist was. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say why this officer received £300 a year as Clerk to the Crown in Chancery in addition to £1,500 a year as Secretary to the Lord Chancellor?

§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER
wished to know whether the Secretary to the Lord Chancellor had continuous occupation?

§ MR. CALDWELL
recalled the fact that Mr. Jennings in 1888, brought this question of the Lord Chancellor's secretary before the House. This was four years after a re-arrangement of the office, and on this occasion Lord Randolph Churchill expressed the opinion that the salary was far too high.

§ DR. CLARK
maintained that those who had made an attack on these salaries were not irresponsible Members of the House. Two of them were ex-Chancellors of the Exchequer. One of them, the Leader of one of the great Parties, stated that the Government could not with decency ask the Committee to assent to the principle of paying the Secretary to the Lord Chancellor £1,500 a year. The Committee had reported that £900 a year would be ample for the office, and Mr. Childers and the present Leader of the Opposition had used similar language. The Committee of 1874 made a recommendation, and when a change occurred and a new Secretary was appointed he was paid £900 a year. Next year his salary was raised £1,000, and Mr. Gladstone's Government abolished an office and increased the secretary's salary to £1,200. In 1885, it was raised from £1,200 to £1,500. Since then the condition of things had grown worse, because another office had been added worth £300, making a total of £1,800. He was sorry to say that the Liberal Government were more to blame in the matter than the Conservative Government.

§ Mr. WARNER
asked, why if the duties of this office were at one time discharged for £900 a year, was it thought necessary to increase the salary to £1,800?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said he had already explained the reason for the increases and by whom they had been made.

§ DR. CLARK
said there appeared to be an increase in the salary of the Sergeant to the Lord Chancellor, but surely there was a misprint. In addition to his salary of £1,500 the Sergeant-at-Arms to the House of Lords received, under this Vote, £300 as Sergeant-at-Arms to the Lord Chancellor. The Sergeant-at-Arms to the House of Commons, who in comparison with the Sergeant-at-Arms in the other House, was a hard worked official, only received £1,200 and never received any increase. Surely the increase shown was a printer's error?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said he could not answer the Question, but he would make inquiries in the matter.

§ MR. BRIGG
desired to refer to the charge in respect to provision for lunatics. He had no want of sympathy for the unfortunate people afflicted with lunacy, but he had had some experience of asylums before they passed into the County Council, and he could bear testimony to the efficient way in which those institutions were managed by Magistrates in Quarter Sessions. Since the advent of County Councils they had been called upon to pay for the erection of magnificent buildings, for greenhouses, for pianos and—

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
said the hon. Gentleman was now alluding to local expenditure.

§ MR. BRIGG
said he desired to draw attention to the action of the Lunacy Commissioners whose salaries they were now discussing. Those Commissioners were very largely responsible for the great expenditure.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
said the Lunacy Commissioners' salaries were provided for in another Vote.

§ MR. R. G. WEBSTER
drew attention to the charge of £17,445 for circuit allowances and expenses. Her Majesty's Judges were frequently called away from London and it had been necessary to appoint one or two Commissioners. It appeared to him that if the Judges were required to try long 397 election petitions, to join special commissions and to inquire into South African affairs, we had not judges enough. There was no use in having Courts and Court officials without having a head. London was the centre of the jurisprudence of the country, and it had not a sufficient number of Judges to try the cases to be heard there. The sum of £17,445 for circuit allowances was a very large one; and they might well ask how this money was expended, especially seeing that adequate arrangements for the satisfactory working of their jurisdiction in London.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said, that much of the work that was done by the Judges in Chambers in London could be better done in the country. This was a matter of administration, simply requiring an order by the Lord Chancellor. A short, time ago he had to make an application to the Government to set up a district registry at Port Madoc, in Carnarvonshire.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
, interposing, said, he had the papers before him, and he should be pleased if the hon. Member would assist him in bringing the matter before the Lord Chancellor. The business could not be forwarded by moving the reduction of this Vote.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
did not agree; it was well established that you might bring about the increase of a Vote by moving its reduction. The only way he could raise the question of setting up a registry at Port Madoc was by moving the reduction of the sum paid to district registrars. But what he asked for need not involve an increase of expenditure. There were two registries in Carnarvonshire; the expenses were paid by fees; and the change proposed would simply mean the transfer of business from Bangor to Port Madoc. He had already applied to the Government for an interview and had been unable to get any satisfaction. This was the last opportunity he would have for 12 months of raising the matter, and he was bound to avail himself of it. There were two registries in North Carnarvonshire and one in the South. Four or five years ago there was only one in the whole county. Application was made for one to be set up at Carnarvon, although it was only 20 miles by rail from Bangor; and the 398 application was a reasonable one. But it took practically a whole day to get from Port Madoc to the nearest registry and back. Yet Port Madoc was the centre of a much wider area than was either of the two registries. He hoped the Attorney General would take note of the facts, and press them at once on the permanent secretary of the Lord Chancellor. With regard to registries generally, he did not think the Government availed themselves to the full of the powers given to them under the Judicature Acts. They were discussing the salaries of registrars and chief clerks in the High Court of Justice. What was the character of the work done by the chief clerks? Simply examining accounts. He had to go through a ship's account before a chief clerk, and it took months to get the business settled. It was adjourned sometimes for a week and sometimes for a fortnight, and the value of a ship was squandered in litigation. The remedy for this was in the hands of the Government; it was to extend the operations of the district registries, and this could be done without legislation. In the case mentioned, which arose at Port Madoc, it might have been disposed of by a registrar there; a local official would understand all about shipping; he could have sat from day to day until the business was disposed of, and thus the whole question would have been settled on the spot.

§ *THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART WORTLEY)
Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself to the conduct of some one paid under this Vote.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
So I am, Sir.

§ *THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
The hon. Member is discussing the question of the number and local distribution of registries which depends upon some person other than a registrar. The hon. Member must confine himself to the conduct of registrars.

§ MR. LLOYD- GEORGE
I think that is not so.

§ *THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
Order, order! The hon. Member must not argue with the Chair.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I am discussing, Mr. Stuart-Wortley—

§ *THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
Order, order! I call upon the hon. Member to resume his seat.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
I was discussing—

§ *THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
I have decided the point of order, and the hon. Member must not argue with the Chair. He must resume his seat unless he desires to pursue another line of argument.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said, he should proceed to discuss the conduct of a particular clerk in the High Court of Chancery Division; he could give the name, but he did not wish to do so, and would only give it if the Attorney General or the Chairman insisted on his doing so. He had constantly appeared before him in regard to shipping accounts. There might be some remedy in the matter, but there appeared to be no remedy. He should move a reduction of the Vote on the ground that there were not sufficient district registrars and that they ought to have more work.

§ *THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)
The very subject I have told hon. Member he cannot discuss.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he would bow to the Chairman's ruling, but he would move the reduction by £600 on the ground that the fees of the district registrars for Carnarvonshire were not properly allocated. People had to travel long distances to get to Carnarvon and Bangor, and it was not fair to the residents in South Carnarvonshire that they should not have this convenience within their reach.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
agreed that the question was worth consideration difficult as it was. It was not possible to subdivide fees too much. The question of the delay of the Chief Clerk had nothing to do with the matter. It was not for the Government, as a Government, to deal with the matter, but if the hon. Member would let him see the memorial he would see whether he could insure additional attention to the matter.

§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
said, he desired to draw attention to a matter under Sub-Head E in connection with the Bangor, Carmarthen, Llandaff and St. Asaph District Probate Registers. This was, he thought, a question which he had brought before the hon. and learned Attorney General on more than one occasion. It related to the wills that were proved in probate registries in Wales in the Welsh language, and what he had to complain of was that so much per folio was charged for the translation of those wills into the English language. He submitted that that was a charge that ought not to be made. The work had to be done by clerks at these registries, and he did not object to their being paid whatever might be necessary in addition to the salary they at present received, but what he did object to was that the relatives of deceased persons should be called upon to pay this charge because the will had been written in the Welsh language—a language which was used by nearly 1,000,000 people. Welshmen ought not to be penalised, so far as these registries were concerned, by reason of their want of knowledge of the English language. The request he made was, he thought, a very simple one, one which could be easily complied with, involving hardly any dislocation of arrangements, and one which would remove a grievance which had been admitted for many years past. He hoped that hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to prevent these charges being made.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the matter was really not one which was likely to come under his notice, and he thought the hon. Member was in error in saying that he had brought it to his attention before. If he had done so, he was sorry to say it had escaped his recollection. He believed the matter arose in this way: All wills had to be copied and kept in the Registry, so that they might be inspected; and he thought that hon. Members would agree that wills in the Welsh language should be at the registries in both languages. He was not aware that any form of extra charge was made, but he thought some inquiry ought to be made, and they ought to see if the charge could be done away with. 401 He would, however, like to consult with those who had practical experience of the matter.

§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would do his best in the direction he had indicated. He thought he had brought the matter to his notice before. If he had not done so, it must have been his predecessor.

MR. BRYN ROBERTS
hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would also include in the scope of the Inquiry this other matter. Even in cases where wills were in English, the attesting witnesses and the executors, in a large number of cases were Welsh, and the District Registrar required that the oath should be administered in Welsh. For that purpose a clerk who understood English and Welsh was brought forward, and he was paid a fee for interpreting the oath. That was a charge, he thought, that ought not to be exacted.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said, there were two points relating to this Vote on which he desired some information. He should like to know why the amount of the Vote was so large; what had been done by the Land Registry Office to justify the expenditure of such a large sum as £7,763? Though a number of Acts had been passed referring to this work of Land Registration, the system adopted had never worked satisfactorily. The public had never taken kindly to it, and there had certainly been a failure to carry out the functions assigned by the original Act, whether from some defect in the machinery, or other causes, he could not say. In the second place he wished to call attention to the item of £1,800 set down for the Registrar's salary. He contended that that salary was much too high for the work done, 402 and that either it should be reduced or more work be given the official to do. The salary of the office ought to be revised at once with a view to reduction, instead of waiting until a vacancy occurred to do so. In the circumstances he moved that the Vote, in especial relation to this item, be reduced by the sum of £1,000.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, the hon. Member had complained that the people of this country had not taken advantage of the Land Registry Office—that the system of land registry had not been so successful as it might have been. Well, he would give the hon. Member a word of practical advice. No profession had shown itself more opposed to land registry than the profession to which the hon. Member belonged, and if the hon. Member would endeavour to influence some of the Leaders of that profession in favour of land registration, or would inaugurate a movement in its favour, he would be rendering a useful service. As a matter of fact, there had been for ten years past a continuous reduction in the expenditure on this office. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that though not so many cases went to the Land Registry as they could have wished, still there was a great deal of work done. From 1889 to 1895 193 new titles had been registered, and in addition, since the Middlesex Registry had been transferred, there were 35,000 cases registered and 13,000 searches annually for incumbrances. There had been other business done under the Small Holdings Act and other Acts recently passed. Not only had there been a considerable increase of business, but there had been also a reduction of expenditure in every item where it could properly be effected. Clerks had been transferred to other departments when their services could be dispensed with, and he doubted whether the staff could be further reduced. It was quite true that the present registrar was receiving £1,000 a year, but there was a considerable saving upon that, and the salary was, besides, subject to revision when a vacancy occurred. Whatever might be said as to the defects in the Land Registry Department, he was satisfied that every effort had been made during the last eight or ten years by the Governments to reduce the 403 expenditure of the office as much as possible.

§ MR. CALDWELL
said, land registration in England had ceased to be of any practical effect, it was very limited in its operations, and the salary was out of all proportion to the services rendered. It would never be a success until they adopted the principle whereby every title must be registered, and only those titles which were put upon the register were to have preference as regards priority of claim for the title. Then, when one purchased a property he would know his title was absolutely safe. In Scotland, where there was a compulsory system, the deputy keeper of the records was only paid £600 a year, and he contended that there was no reason why the same work should in England cost the Treasury £1,800.

MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)
took exception to the statement of the Attorney General as to the alleged indisposition of solicitors to take advantage of the Land Registry. The idea that solicitors were opposed to the office was altogether unfounded.

§ MR. GEORGE LAMBERT (Devon, South Molton)
regretted that the Government had not re-appointed the Committee in connection with this Department in order to make it more efficient. It seemed to him that the Government was quite willing to spend money on the Registry Office, though they were not willing to re-appoint a Committee in order to make the office worth the money spent upon it. The matter was of importance to the country generally, and the Government should give their best attention to the simplification of our system of land transfer. No more important question agitated the minds of those who lived in the country than the enormous fees that had to be paid for the conveyance of land.

§ MR. R. B. HALDANE (Haddington)
asked whether the Attorney General was aware that there were two registries. Ordinary deeds respecting land in Middlesex were registered in the office of the Land Registry, but in respect of Crown titles there was another and co-ordinate system of registration which was conducted in the Office of Woods and Forests. This dual system was objectionable, because it perplexed 404 purchasers who wished to make investigations into title. Why not provide for the transfer of the register which existed at the office of Woods and Forests to the Middlesex Land Registry? He felt sure that there would be no opposition to any legislation that might be necessary, and the change would be very convenient to owners and purchasers of land in Middlesex.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said that his recollection of the matter was that the register kept at the office of Woods and Forests was simply in connection with Crown lands. He did not at present think that the change proposed by the hon. and learned Member would result in any practical advantage, but he would inquire into the matter. With reference to the committee referred to by the hon. Member for the South Molton Division, he could give no pledge in the absence of the Leader of the House that it would be reappointed.

§ MR. LAMBERT
thought that the labours of the Committee ought not to be wasted. It sat for two months and heard evidence from solicitors from all parts of the country. The work was interrupted by the dissolution of Parliament. The labours of a committee of this description ought not to be rendered fruitless in consequence of an event of that kind. It was desirable to hear the evidence of the Land Registry officials as to the ways (if any) by which the office could be made more efficient. If re-appointed, the Committee, he believed, would be able to devise some scheme by which the office would be made more useful to those who were concerned in the transfer of land.

MR. W.E.M.TOMLINSON (Preston)
said, that while there was no question about the desirability of cheapening the transfer of land, he could not agree that the Committee ought to be reappointed under the conditions of the Inquiry of last session. In the interval that had elapsed, solicitors had given a great deal of attention to the subject, and the conclusion which they had come to was that registration by itself would go a very little way towards cheapening the transfer of land. The difficulties attending the subject did not arise merely from causes that could be remedied by a system of registration. A Committee, 405 therefore, if appointed, ought to be empowered to take a large view of the question and to be given a free hand. From the appointment of a Committee having a wider scope than that of last session, benefit might possibly result.

§ MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE (Northumberland, Tyneside)
said, that had it not been that the Attorney General had said that this was a matter for the Leader of the House to deal with, he would hardly have ventured to call attention to the presence of the right hon. Gentleman in the House at that moment; but it was a matter of the utmost importance to the country that the Committee should be reappointed, and he trusted that the Leader of the House might be inclined to state his views on the subject.

§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS
wished to enforce the appeal the hon. Gentleman had just made. He could assure the Committee that this was a matter which had always evoked the greatest amount of interest in the country. He hoped the Committee would be reappointed.

§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
understood that the question put to him was, whether the Government would be prepared to reappoint the Committee which sat in the last Parliament. Of course, in the nature of things it could not be the same Committee, but he thought it quite possible that a Committee might be reappointed.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said, he had moved the reduction of the salary of the Registrar by £1,000 on the ground that it was excessive, having regard to the character of his duties. The Attorney General had blamed solicitors for the failure of the Registry.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
explained that what he said was, that the system of registration of title had not been successful because there was a strong feeling against it in the profession.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
thought that amounted to much the same thing. The hon. and learned Gentleman now said the failure was attributable to a strong feeling on the part of the profession. That was tantamount to saying that it was due to the solicitors—that they had a strong prejudice against the Registry. He denied that that was so. The failure was due to the fact that anyone who desired to register deeds could not do so without every delay and difficulty, em- 406 barrassment and impediment being placed in his way. The Registry was set up with the idea of simplifying the transfer of land; but it had the effect of delaying it, and adding considerably to the expense. All that he attributed to the fact that the gentleman at the head of the Registry was a failure. That the Attorney General himself had admitted.
And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee also report progress; to sit again upon Monday next.