§ MR. WHITLEY (Halifax)said he would have to move to report Progress in order to call attention to the arrangement of the order of the Votes. It was understood that the Votes would be put down in the usual order, but that was not so, and the Votes some hon. Members were anxious to discuss were left out, and therefore could not be discussed at all. This was a very unusual proceeding. It was a surprise to many hon. Members who had thought that one particular Vote would probably occupy the whole sitting. He contended that an arrangement of that kind should not be made without some public intimation, and in order to elicit an explanation from the Government, he begged to move to report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Whitley.)
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,) Inverness Burghssaid the reason was very simple. The hon. 1362 Member for South Molton had stated in the House that on the first or second Vote he proposed to raise a discussion with regard to a prosecution which was now pending. It was impossible that there should be a discussion in the House with regard to a case which was sub judice, and for that reason, and for no other, the Votes had been postponed.
§ MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)We were told on Tuesday that the first Vote that would be taken would be the law charges.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYNo the words were "Law and Justice" which cover all the items.
§ SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)agreed as to the impropriety of discussing a pending prosecution; but, on the other hand, it was an alarming state of things that the House of Commons should, by the crime of—or rather accusation of crime against—an individual, be precluded from exercising its proper function of discussing the expenditure of the country—in this case, that of the law officers' Department—for a whole year. That was a general proposition which he could not accede to.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid if there was general consent on the part of the House that cases now pending should be excluded from the discussion, this Vote could be put down at the first opportunity. But he would point out that, if some one insisted on his technical right to raise a debate on a pending prosecution, the hon. and learned Member would at once see the difficulty of putting down the Vote. The inconvenience was not the result of the action of the Government but the determination of some hon. Members to discuss matters which it would be contrary to the ordinary decencies to bring on in the present situation. It would be wrong to have a discussion which might prejudice either the prosecution or the defence. Personally, he was only too anxious that the debate should be taken as soon as possible.
§ MR. BRYCE (Aberdeen, S.)said he could quite understand the desire of the hon. and learned Gentleman to take the first possible opportunity of vindicating his conduct, and it was an unfortunate 1363 thing that any pending case should be discussed in that House. But surely it was a far greater evil to withhold from the House of Commons its constitutional right of discussing important Votes because possibly something might be said in the debate which might be prejudicial to the prosecution or the defence in the case alluded to. That was a doctrine in which he could not acquiesce.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.said the Government not only did not propose to the House to accept that doctrine but it had never even been suggested by him or by any one of his colleagues. The question was a simple one. He always desired to put down the Supply which, as far as he could gather, the House desired to discuss. It never occurred to the Government to lay down a hard and fast rule that the House should be precluded from discussing its own Estimates because there was a case pending. It was simply a question of convenience as to what should be done on this particular Supply day. There were many Supply days remaining, and there was just a chance that the case might be finished by the end of the session.
§ MR. HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)Is there any chance of the Wright case being finished before the end of the session?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURYes, there is a chance.
§ MR. HEMPHILLIt has not been sent over from America yet.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI believe there is a very good chance. The right hon. Gentleman continuing said he only rose to correct a misapprehension. Whatever Estimates were taken, let no one go away with the idea that there was any desire to withhold any of them from the House. He hoped the Committee would now be allowed to proceed with the Votes on the Paper, as they were the only ones which under the Standing Order could be taken that day.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was correct so 1364 far as it went, but his complaint was that the House as a whole was kept in absolute ignorance of the intention to hold these Votes back until it was too late. His desire was to secure a proper discussion of the Estimates, and he would appeal to the Prime Minister to arrange, if possible, that the Supply to be taken should be placed on the Paper a week in advance, the notice now given being in his opinion too short for useful criticism in the interests of economy. That was the main reason for his protest that night.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the common practice had been that the Supply for Thursday was stated on the preceding Monday [An HON. MEMBER: Too short.] If any complaint had reached his ears that this notice was too short, the practice could easily be altered. The Government had no interest whatever in keeping secret the Supply they were to take; and the sole reason why the announcement was not made earlier was that very often events occurred which made it desirable to have some immediate discussion. He had endeavoured to accede to what he believed to be the wish of the House.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said that an intimation on Monday of the Supply to be taken on Thursday was quite long enough notice. The case of Whitaker Wright, which was remotely connected with this Vote, might be sub judice up to and long after the end of the session, and if the House was precluded from discussing the Vote hon. Members would not have the opportunity of discussing it this year. Moreover, he was not sure whether the question desired to be raised had anything to do with the merits of the case which was sub judice. The matter it was desired to discuss was the advice which had been given in the Whitaker Wright case by the law officers of the Crown. Therefore, while the doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister was a sound one, he thought the Government should give an undertaking that the fact that the Whitaker Wright case was sub judice would not preclude the House for ever from discussing this Vote.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that he was anxious to avoid in future anything that might lead to misconception. He did not give a pledge that this Vote would come on, but it would come on if it was the general wish of the House. He had no desire to keep it back from the House, but he could not absolutely promise to find a day for it should the House wish to discuss other Votes within the allotted time.
§ MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.)said the misunderstanding should not be attributed to hon. Members on that side of the House. On Friday last, when interrogated as to the Supply to be taken to-day, the Prime Minister promised to make a statement on Monday. The House were then told that Glass III., Law Charges, would be taken. He now understood—though he had not before heard of it—that a private arrangement was entered into last night by which Vote 3, and not Vote 1, would be taken. The moral he wished to point was that these private arrangements should be publicly announced, because they constantly gave rise to misunderstanding, delayed public business, and really defeated the purpose of the House by necessitating discussions without adequate notice or full information.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,) Somersetshire, Wellingtonexplained how the situation arose. On Monday the Prime Minister was asked what Estimates would be taken that day. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite asked that Vote 1 of one of the larger Departments connected with the Civil Service and Revenue Departments should be taken, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean asked that the Home Office Vote should not be taken. Shortly afterwards, two right hon. Gentlemen opposite came to him behind the Speaker's Chair, one asking that the Local Government Board Vote should be taken, the other begging that that particular Vote should be held over. Eventually it was agreed that the Local Government Board Vote should not be taken. Having cut out the Home Office and the Local Government Board, and having got the 1366 Treasury, the Board of Agriculture, and the Board of Trade, the field was very limited; but, finally, it was suggested that the Vote for law charges should be taken first. He communicated this to the House at midnight on Monday. Afterwards, he found that the hon. Member for South Molton wished to raise the question of Whitaker Wright, and in the ordinary way he communicated with one of the Opposition Whips, and told him that Votes 1 and 2 would not be taken, also writing a private letter to the hon. Member for South Molton to this effect. Personally, he had done all he could in accordance with Parliamentary etiquette, and he regretted if the House had been put to any inconvenience.
§ MR. BRYCEacknowledged that the hon. Gentleman always showed an anxious desire to serve all sections of the House, and to give the fullest information. The unfortunate thing was that, in this particular case, the information had not reached the general body of Members.
§ SIR JOSEPH LEESE (Lancashire Accrington)was understood to say that, it being represented that to raise this question might be unfair to a prisoner undergoing his trial, and there was also unfairness to the Attorney-General, whose mouth would be closed, he was quite certain that the good feeling of the House would be a sufficient safeguard in that direction.
§ MR. WHITLEY, in asking leave to withdraw the Motion, said he had always received the utmost courtesy from the hon. Gentleman for the Wellington Division in connection with these business arrangements. What had led to the difficulty was the fact that the House was not informed last night of the changed arrangements.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £180,118, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for such of the salaries and 1367 expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
§ MR. BUCHANANasked who was really responsible for this Estimate as a whole. In framing the Estimates, the usual course was for the head of the Department to exercise a general supervision, and then to submit his particular estimate to the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer for approval, holding himself ready to answer for the various branches and details of the Estimate. As he understood, there was no such central control over the Estimate under discussion. To illustrate the matter, he put this case to the Attorney-General—if the Lord Chancellor desired to increase his staff by a certain number of clerks, would he have to obtain the consent of the Treasury before placing the additional charge on the Estimates for the year? Where a Department wished to increase its establishment by any considerable number of officials it had to get the consent of the Treasury before it could apply to Parliament for increased expenditure. He wished to know whether the same rule applied to this Vote. The heads of the Court of Judicature were in a position of greater independence than the heads of the Civil Service Departments, and this did not tend to economical expenditure.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that appointments under this Vote were made and held under wholly different conditions to the rest of the Civil Service, and with an almost complete absence of those checks which the wisdom of Parliament had imposed upon every other kind of expenditure. The reason might be that there was an enormous amount of fees, and it might be considered that they had a sort of right to an independent administration of their Own. All the appointments and salaries were fixed by the respective heads of Departments, and not by the Treasury. This was a very large Department, incurring a large expenditure which was wholly withdrawn from the ordinary securities which attached to the expenditure of this country. He thought the Treasury had to be consulted before any 1368 material changes were made in the existing scales of salaries. Was that so? He believed it was perfectly true that the Treasury had no sort of control over this expenditure at all, corresponding to the control which it had over other Departments. They all had the highest respect for the Judges in their judicial capacity, but he had very little respect for them in their financial capacity. He believed they were very bad financiers, probably through their early training and the demoralising effect of large fees, and he believed that they were by nature, profession, and practice addicted to extravagance of the most reckless kind. This was partly the fault of Parliament, because a lawyer generally got about ten times the salary of any other person of the highest possible eminence under these appointments. He had the very greatest conceivable distrust of His Majesty's Judges as financiers, and he thought this Department should be treated the same as other Departments which were administrated and controlled by the Treasury. If there were some great contravention of principle, or some serious ground on which the withdrawal of this large Department from the control of the Treasury could be justified, he wished to know what it was. He supposed that there was some sort of answer to be given to this question. If the official answer was that this enormous judicial establishment collected fees which it would, in the ordinary way, be entitled to keep, but which it had now to hand over, that argument had no effect at all. That was recognised as a dangerous system years ago, when it was ordained that the Revenue Department should pay all Departments.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid that on one page of the Estimates before them there was a note telling them that in the case of second class clerks the number was to be reduced by one on a vacancy. That was to say that they were overstaffed by one clerk. On the very next page he noticed that three new clerks had been engaged at exactly the same rate of salary, and apparently exactly the same class of public servant. If the Treasury did its duty in this matter, application would have to be made to them to say 1369 whether three more second class clerks were required, and they could have made arrangements to transfer one clerk from the Department which was overstaffed. This kind of thing was continually occurring. Certain Departments were overstaffed and could well spare some of their clerks. He gave that as an illustration to show where Treasury control was useful and where economy might be brought about.
§ SIR ROBERT REID (Dumfries Burghs)said it was quite true that a great number of these appointments were made by the heads of Departments, and many of them were made by the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls. Others were made by the Lord Chancellor. In regard to these appointments it should be remembered that if they wanted proper appointments made they ought to be made by some person thoroughly acquainted with the subject. If they were made by the First Lord of the Treasury or any other great official, he would only go to the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney-General for advice. So far as the minor appointments made by the President of the Probate Court, the Master of the Rolls, and the Lord Chief Justice were concerned, he should deprecate those appointments being taken away from those officials in order to be given to the Lord Chancellor, whose patronage was already far too great.
§ SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the only observation he had to make on the subject was this. He did not at all suppose that there was no room for reform. Far from it. He should think it was very likely that there were superfluous offices which ought certainly to be cut down. There might be Departments which were understaffed, but he had no doubt there were some which were overstaffed, and if the hon. Gentleman or anybody else wished to bring it to a point by means of a Departmental inquiry, or in any other convenient manner, to get a thorough knowledge of 1370 what the expense was and how it could probably be diminished, he would heartily support the proposal. He asked the Attorney-General to state how the appeals stood now. There had been for two or three years a very great excess of arrears. The present Master of the Rolls and the Court of Appeal had done their best to avoid this state of things, and they had had the assistance of a third Court. He did not know whether they had got the arrears down to a satisfactory condition, but he did say that the Court of Appeal ought not to be pressed with such an excess of work. It was a state of things which ought not to exist. It was not creditable to the country. He should very much deprecate an increase of the Court of Appeal if it could be avoided in any way, but if the amount of work which came before the Judges could be diminished by limiting appeals, or otherwise, it was desirable to avoid working the Court of Appeal at high pressure in clearing off arrears.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries was one of very great and general importance. He was glad to be able to say that according to his information the arrears were in a very much more satisfactory condition than they were last year. In regard to the Chancery appeals, where the arrears were formidable indeed, he understood that they were almost, if not altogether, disposed of; but in regard to the appeals from the Exchequer Division, the state of things was not quite so satisfactory, although he hoped the Court was not very far behind He understood they had a number of very heavy cases which required prolonged argument, and this had prevented the Court from being so well situated with regard to progress as was hoped at one time. The improved state of things at present as compared with last year was no doubt due to the sitting of the third Court, in which the Lord Chancellor presided, and which had done substantial service in clearing off a number of cases. If assistance was required from time to time, he was sure it would be given in the same way, so that the necessity for more Judges would be avoided. Of course it was extremely 1371 desirable that the arrears should be kept within reasonable compass, because every lawyer knew that as soon as it was known that arrears were accumulating, appeals were put down for the purpose of gaining time. It was said by a distinguished lawyer in the United States that the way to keep down arrears was to have none. If they did not have arrears they would find that appeals would not be entered. A proposal had been mooted in regard to which he was not in a position to say anything on behalf of the Government. It was that where there was a decision given by a divisional court of three Judges with the Chief Justice presiding, it might be possible to appeal from that Court direct to the House of Lords. He thought that arrangement might, it carried out, relieve the Appeal Court of a certain amount of work which at present occupied its time. He was in entire accord with what was said by his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn in regard to appointments by the Judges. No one could say that the patronage of legal posts ought not to rest with the Judges. After all, they must trust some one, and the person most fitted to be trusted was the person who was concerned in the efficient discharge of the work. Every man in business knew that the way to secure the best appointments was to leave the appointments to a subordinate who was conversant with the work himself, and whose business it was to see that the work was efficiently done. He assured the hon. Member for Lynn Regis that he had not observed any of the symptoms which he seemed to have detected, namely, a tendency to extravagance. The hon. Member thought that the Judges were reckless in money matters, and that they were disposed to appoint officials at large salaries. Even if the Judges had any defects of that nature they were under the control of the Treasury.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the Treasury did not control the persons to be appointed. It would be a very improper thing if it did, but if any new 1372 office was created which involved any expenditure, whether out of money voted by the House, or out of fees, that expenditure could only be incurred with the consent of, and under a scheme approved by the Treasury. His hon. friend's remarks seemed rather to apply to days early in the last century when there were sinecures with which it was difficult to deal. There was one post then with emoluments amounting to £25,000 a year. When an inquiry was held the Lord Chief Justice was called as a witness, and asked whether he did not think it was possible to reduce the salary, he replied, with great force and irresistible logic, that if there were any duties attached to the office which could be reduced they could reduce the salary in proportion, but as there were no duties it was impossible to entertain the idea of reducing the salary. The hon. Member for Halifax had suggested that a clerk might sometimes be transferred from one post to another. If a clerk was appointed for some particular duties, they could not ensure that he would be an Admirable Crichton and that he would be qualified to take up the other duties to which he might be transferred. It might turn out to be a great mistake to transfer him to a totally new field, even though thereby some economy might on the face of the Estimates be obtained.
MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Swansea District)said the Attorney-General had not quite answered the criticism from this side of the House. What had always struck him about this particular Vote was that under the present regulations of the House there was no efficient check upon improper appointments by the Judges. He entirely agreed with what had been said as to the propriety of allowing the Judges the patronage in regard to any offices in connection with the Courts of Justice, but the difficulty in which the Committee were placed was that the salaries of the Judges were on the consolidated fund, and they could not discuss these appointments. The salaries of the judges were properly on the Consolidated Fund in order that their judicial action might not be criticised by this House, but in the exercise of 1373 patronage they exercised an executive and not a judicial act. It would be entirely unfair to attack an official referee in this House on the ground that he was incompetent, but it would be quite another and a proper thing to criticise adversely the action of the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice for making the appointment. He recognised that there was very great difficulty in the matter, but still more difficulty in regard to the question of the control of subordinate offices. So far as he could see the control of the Judges over the subordinate officers was by no means adequate. He did not know, for instance, how they were to get rid of an incompetent Master or Official Referee. He wished to call the attention of the Attorney-General once more to the amalgamation of the offices of probate registrar and district registrar of the High Court of Justice. He knew that some years ago the present Lord Chancellor was anxious that many of the offices of the Courts of Justice should be amalgamated.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE (Huddersfield)said he was very glad to hear that the policy of the right hon. Gentleman was to abolish the intermediate appeal between the King's Bench and the House of Lords. He wished to ask whether there was no means of pensioning aged official referees who were unfitted by reason of the infirmity of years to conduct the business which they had to do. It was known that Judges of the High Court at the expiration of fifteen years were entitled to retire and receive a pension. So long as they remained vigorous no one would suggest that they should avail themselves of that course. It was notorious that legal business in certain Departments of the judicature was now very much handicapped indeed by reason of the fact that a certain gentleman retained his position although the infirmity of his years prevented him from discharging his duties to the satisfaction of those interested in the business of that Department. It was said that the reason of that was that there was no provision of the law entitling him to retire on a pension. If so, that was a defect in the law which should be remedied.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that as regarded the exercise of patronage it would be very invidious indeed if the House were to sit in judgment on the exercise of patronage in an individual case. In regard to the amalgamation of the offices of probate registrar and that of the district registrar of the High Court of Justice there was no doubt that that was a matter which deserved consideration. He was not in a position to make a statement now on the subject, but what his hon. and learned friend said should command attention, and the nature of the matter was such that he was sure it would receive it. In regard to pensions he was not in a position to make any authoritative statement, but his impression was that if an official was disqualified by illness he was entitled to a superannuation allowance. He, however, might possibly be wrong.
§ MR. JAMES WOODHOUSENot necessarily illness, but advanced age.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that advanced age incapacitating an official from performing the duties of his office came to the same thing as illness. If some provision was not available in such cases he thought the question was worthy of consideration.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEsaid that in the case of county court Judges, although they were not entitled to a pension, there was an express provision in the statute which enabled the Lord Chancellor to retire them on an allowance. He thought that that should be applied to three important officials in the courts now.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was so encouraged by the generous way in which the Attorney-General had answered him previously, and especially by the admirable illustration the right hon. Gentleman had given of the correctness of his view, that he ventured to bring under his notice another very delicate case. He referred to the retention of office by Judges at a time when it would be desirable for the public benefit that they should retire. Nobody was a greater advocate than 1375 himself of the sound constitutional principle that the Judges should be placed beyond all outside influences.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid there were two points he wished to bring before the Committee — one on finance and the other in regard to patronage. The Attorney-General had given a very general answer to a question put to him in regard to the first; and he would be rather surprised if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury were to make an answer in equally broad terms. The question he had to put was—Had the Treasury the same control over the increases in mass and detail on this Estimate as it had over the increases in mass and detail of other Estimates submitted to the House of Commons? Because, from all the evidence given before the Committee on National Expenditure and various other Committees, the Treasury control over these law charges, particularly this Vote, and the creation of new offices, and the increase of salaries of the new officials, was much less complete and effective than in other Departments of the Civil Service expenditure. It was not necessary to prove that on this Vote there had been gross expenditure, but what they pressed for was that there should be as effective control over the people who were responsible—the Lord Chancellor and others—for the Department served by this Estimate as there was over the other great Departments of the State. In regard to the second point—viz., patronage—speaking as a layman he was not sure that he quite agreed with what had been said by previous speakers. Of course there was a great distinction between the patronage of the offices contained in this Estimate and other offices in other Departments. Some of these were distinctly legal and personal offices, and it was only reasonable that the Lord Chancellor should be able to give them to those who he thought were able to discharge the functions of these offices. But was he to understand that the Lord Chancellor and other legal heads of the various Departments under this Vote had the right of 1376 patronage over the clerks in these various Departments? That appeared to him to be no inroad on the right of private patronage. There were between 300 and 400 clerks borne on this Estimate. Were these generally appointed after open competition and examination under the Civil Service Commission, or were they not? And if not, why should they not be appointed under the same rules as the clerical staff in other Departments of the State were appointed? The work they performed was analogous to that performed by the clerks in other offices, and their appointment should no longer be entrusted to private individuals, but only after competition and examination.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that there were seven Masters of the Supreme Court, and two Assistant Masters. Who had authority to determine the number?
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY Mr. ELLIOT (Durham)said there appeared to be a misapprehension as to the absence of financial control on the part of the Treasury. There was no doubt whatever that the Lord Chancellor or any other great dignitary had no more power to appoint a clerk and get him paid out of public funds than any hon. Member. If any important change were proposed as to the number or salaries of particular officials at the Courts of Justice it could not be enforced without the sanction and approval of the Treasury having been obtained. He had not been very long at the Treasury, but he had been long enough there to know that it was impossible to get hold of public money without the sanction and approval of the Treasury.
§ MR. ELLIOTsaid that superannuation was regulated by Act of Parliament under a recognised scheme. To suppose that any great dignitary could do as he liked as regarded superannuation was a mistake.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked what duty the messenger of the Great 1377 Seal discharged. The Lord Chancellor had nine personal attendants. He could understand the permanent secretary, the private secretary, the clerk of the chamber, the junior clerk of the chamber, the first clerk, and the third class clerk, but he could not understand the messenger of the Great Seal. There was also an allowance of £12 for an assistant sealer. He was given to understand that the Great Seal was in charge of the Lord Chancellor himself. He himself when in the House which the Lord Chancellor honoured with his presence saw the Great Seal in his charge. The Lord Chancellor was the custodian, and the only custodian, of the Great Seal. What, therefore, was the messenger for?
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he thought his hon. friend would see that although the Great Seal was in charge of the Lord Chancellor it was impossible for the Lord Chancellor to carry all the documents to which the Great Seal was to be affixed. It was part of the duty of the messenger of the Great Seal to see that those documents were taken to the proper place in order that the Great Seal might be affixed to them.
§ MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid)asked whether the clerks in the first, second, and third divisions were appointed by examination under the Civil Service system.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he was informed by the Secretary to the Treasury that the classification was the result of examination. He did not say that there was an examination in every case, as circumstances might require the appointment of a particular person possessing special qualifications, who might find it difficult at his time of life to pass an examination.
§ MR. CALDWELLasked if the clerks were placed in their respective divisions as the result of a Civil Service examination. The various divisions mentioned would lead hon. Members to suppose that the clerks had passed a Civil Service examination in the usual way. When he mentioned the matter five or 1378 six years ago, the appointments were not then made as a result of a Civil Service examination, though there might have been a change since then. The clerks were then appointed on the nominations of different Judges without any examination at all. He was anxious that those clerks should be brought into the ordinary Civil Service so that no question of favouritism might arise. He wanted to know how the matter really stood now.
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,) Dublin Universitysaid he understood that the clerks were appointed as follows—they were nominated by the presidents of the various divisions, after which they had to pass an examination. There were separate examinations for each of the three classes. As regarded promotion, in the majority of cases it was by seniority, but no clerk could be promoted without having a certificate from the head of his Department that he was a proper person for promotion. There was no great distinction between that system and the system in the other great Departments.
§ MR. BUCHANANsaid the Committee were now getting at the facts. Those clerks were not appointed by ordinary Civil Service examination. They numbered about 300, and were not elected by open competition. They were appointed under a system of private patronage with a qualifying examination. Why should there be such a large amount of private patronage, and why should those positions be closed to open public competition? He thought it would be the bounden duty of the Committee to express an opinion on the matter.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that that was a perfectly new question. It was not the universal rule in the Civil Service that appointments should be made by competitive examination. Competitive examinations were admirable, but they were not a panacea for all human ills. He did not understand why a great Department such as Law and Justice should be held up to opprobrium because it adopted a system of nomination 1379 in order to get the best men. As regarded the qualifying examination, it was held in accordance with a scheme settled by the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury and it was issued by the Civil Service Commissioners for the guidance of candidates. There was, however, a special power to dispense with an examination in the case of an individual possessing particular qualifications. He did not think that any complaint could be made with reference to the personnel of the office of Law and Justice.
§ MR. BUCHANAN, in consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the hon. and learned Attorney-General, moved that the Vote be reduced by £100.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £180,018, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
§ SIR JOHN GORST (Cambridge University)said the hon. Member who had moved the reduction was quite in error in his view of the Civil Service of this country. The appointments were not made, as he supposed, by competitive
§ examination. In all branches of the Civil Service persons were selected because they had special qualifications. The Geological Survey, for instance, might desire to appoint a geologist. They would not appoint him by competitive examination, but would select some one near at hand with special qualifications, and if he had not a University degree an examination took place to test his general education.
§ SIR ROBERT REIDsaid he could not vote for his hon. friend because he had seen the result of those competitive examinations. He believed himself that the appointment by competitive examination was not good for the public service. He believed that the service would be much benefited if they could find some impartial person to make the appointment. He did not wish to see the Chinese system carried into our public service.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 83; Noes, 178. (Division List No.95.)
1381| Baird, John George Alexander | Flower, Ernest | Myers, William Henry |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Forster, Henry William | Nicol, Donal Ninian |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey | Fyler, John Arthur | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds | Gardner, Ernest | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Garfit, William | Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Purvis, Robert |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Graham, Henry Robert | Randles, John S. |
| Bignold, Arthur | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Bill, Charles | Groves, James Grimble | Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Gunter, Sir Robert | Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green |
| Bowles, Col. H. F. (Middlesex | Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis | Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Brassey, Albert | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Bull, William James | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ | Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Heaton, John Henniker | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) | Helder, Augustus | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc | Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somerset, E. | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry | Hogg, Lindsay | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Chapman, Edward | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Sloan, Thomas Henry. |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Smith, H. C. (North'umb Tyneside |
| Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Hoult, Joseph | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks |
| Coddington, Sir William | Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham | Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R. | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Johnstone, Heywood | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Kenyon Slaney, Col. W. (Salop | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. | Kimber, Henry | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Knowles, Lees | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R. | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham) | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Valentia, Viscount |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield |
| Denny, Colonel | Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. | Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Lundon, W. | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Maconochie, A. W. | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.) | Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants. | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r | Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Morrison, James Archibald | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Younger, William |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Mount, William Arthur | |
| Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose | Muntz, Sir Philip A. | Sir Alexander Acland- |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute | Hood and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) |
§ 2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £28,144, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Land Registry."
1382§ SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)said that in discussing the operations of the Land Transfer Act, the question of whether or not land transfer by registration was the better system was one for the public, and should not be raised at all as a matter of professional interest. He did not intend to discuss the merits or demerits of the Act, but after five or six years experience of its working in the County of London certain criticisms had been made. The Act 1383 was alleged to have caused an increase of cost in the transfer of land, which was a matter of great moment to land owners, and one raising economic considerations of no small value from the social point of view. It was also said to have produced greater complication with reference to the the title of land, to have caused delays both in action and in administration, and not to have been the greater check upon fraud which its supporters anticipated it would be. It was further alleged that under the Act the risk of mistakes was greater, and that there had been a large increase of officialism. Many people, too, objected to the element of compulsion. Without expressing any opinion on those criticisms, it was only natural, when an increased amount was asked for the purpose of extending the operation of the Act, that the Committee should inquire how the Act had been administered, and whether it should be regarded merely as a temporary measure, an experiment, or as having a more permanent character. The Land Transfer Bill, when under consideration in the House, encountered many obstacles and difficulties, and, though he would not say there was an express agreement that an inquiry should be held, there was no doubt the Bill was allowed to pass upon the understanding that it was an experiment, and that experience should determine whether or not it should become a permanent part of the law. To ensure its operation being watched tentatively the express provision was made that it should be put into force gradually. That that was the clear understanding the comments of the public Press abundantly proved. He did not suggest that they should revert to the former condition of things, but, allegations having been made, he did ask that some inquiry should be made as to where the facts really lay.
The Act had been in operation for some time, considerable experience had been gained, and some test should be applied to see whether its operation had been successful or not. The system of the gradual application of the Act through the counties was an important element in the inquiry, because it was obviously for the purpose of 1384 obtaining evidence as to the success or otherwise of the Act. Inasmuch as the County Council had to determine this question it was material that they should go through some inquiry in order to know whether they should apply the Act or not. That could only be done properly by some form of public inquiry through a Committee of this House, or a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. Questions had been asked by several hon. Members as to whether such an inquiry would take place, and replies had been received in the negative. Were they to take the opinion of the framers and administrators of the Act? Surely that could not be satisfactory to those who took a different view of the operation of the Act. It was said officially in the House that an inquiry had taken place, but that answer was an admission of the desirability of inquiry. What was that inquiry? It was not a public and independent impartial inquiry through a Committee, but through a Departmental Committee conducted by the framers and administrators of the Act, and not bearing any of those credentials which would give the weight which such an opinion ought to have. It was no inquiry really, for it was limited to the working of the Act and to the demands of the registry as to staff and the mode in which it had been performing its work. Anything above that was beyond the purview of the inquiry. It was a Departmental inquiry of the most limited character by the terms of the reference. He asked that there should be a more general, impartial, and independent inquiry and they ought to have some assurance that such an inquiry would be held. It was quite possible an inquiry might justify the Act, and if it did, it would meet with acceptance, by the public and the profession. If the facts were likely to lead to that conclusion, why was there any hesitation? An inquiry would produce conviction and settle public opinion. If, on the other hand, there were facts which would show that the charges made against the Act and registry were well founded, it was of great importance to the public that the system should be put an end to if it was found to be faulty.
An inquiry was desired by many classes of persons who were brought in 1385 contact with dealings in land—by building societies, bankers in the City, by a large meeting in the City of representatives of Chambers of Commerce, bankers, and property owners, and by several Borough Councils. As the County Councils had the statutory responsibility of applying the Act or not according to the experience of its working in its earlier stages in the Metropolis, there should be some means of determining for their guidance what the operation of the Act had been. If it had been costly and had not answered expectations, that ought to be embodied in a Report in order to put County Councils on their guard against applying the Act. If, on the other hand, the Act had operated well, or was likely to operate well, and the Committee was satisfied with its working, no one would seek to interfere with that result, and it would be welcomed by every landowner, and this would be in the public interest. Before more money was spent on officialism and staff and registry buildings, the Committee ought to be well satisfied that the experimental stage of the measure had passed. He hoped they would hear from the learned Attorney-General what was so reasonably desired by so many classes and bodies of public men. If his reply was satisfactory no further objection would be raised to the Vote. If it was unsatisfactory then he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the Committee upon this question both from an economical and social point of view.
§ MR. WHITLEYthought it was desirable that this Motion should be supported by at least one hon. Member who did not belong to the profession which was so much respected in this House, but which was sometimes considered to have views of its own which did not commend themselves to all laymen. His first reason for pressing for an inquiry into the system of land registry was that in the district he represented in the West Riding of Yorkshire, there was a strong feeling that that district would, in all probability, be the next one to have this system extended to it. He was aware that that could not be done without the assent of the West Riding County Council, but he had had 1386 several representations made to him from his constituency and from the Law Society there, urging him to press upon the Government that there should be an impartial inquiry, now that the Act had been in operation for five years, whereas the experimental term mentioned was three years. They contended that there should be a proper impartial inquiry, in order that County Councils in other parts of the country might have proper information to guide them in considering the question whether they should ask for the application of this Act to their own district or not. In the West Riding of Yorkshire they had already an excellent system of land registry at Wakefield, and they were disinclined to give up that system in favour of the one in operation in London unless there was strong evidence, taken by an impartial Committee of Inquiry, showing that the system under the Act of 1897, was one which conferred substantial benefit. This matter had been several times before the House by means of questions, but this Vote had very often come under the guillotine, and, consequently, it was not often they had had an opportunity of pressing for an inquiry into this matter. Replying to a question on the 6th of February last year, the Attorney-General said that—
An inquiry has in fact been held, with the aid of an independent Committee, into the organisation and working of the Office of Land Registry, and the result is entirely satisfactory.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSONHear, hear!
§ MR. WHITLEYThe Solicitor-General said "Hear, hear," but he should like to know where was the result of that inquiry? They did not even know what the reference was. What they wanted was not a departmental inquiry, conducted entirely by lawyers, but an inquiry which would fairly represent the various business interests concerned as to whether the working of this Act in London had been a success or not. The reply of the Attorney-General did not meet the case. In the first place, the Committee he spoke of was the wrong sort of Committee to deal with it; and in the second place, they had not got the Report of that Committee, and the inquiry only appeared to have been made as to the 1387 organisation and working of the office. That might be a proper thing for inquiry, but it was not the inquiry they were asking for. They wished to know if this Act had carried out the anticipations of its promoters, and whether it had simplified and cheapened land transfer in such a manner as to justify this system being applied to other parts of the country. If the result was good it was high time the system should be extended. If the idea present in the minds of those who brought in the Bill had proved to be correct why exclude other parts of the country from the benefits of the Act? If, on the other hand, the result of the working of the Act had greatly increased expense and complication, this fact ought to be made known. He was informed that a case had been decided in the High Court which appeared to show that the title was not a good one at all. He hoped some legal member of the Committee would be familiar with that case, and able to say exactly what was the result of the decision on the system now in operation in London. The Attorney-General seemed to take pride in the fact that when the Act passed through this House it was passed nem. con. He ventured to think that that fact was due to the assurance given to the House that it was to be experimental in the first instance, and that there would be proper inquiries into its working before it was extended to other parts of the country. If the Attorney-General believed that it had been working satisfactorily he should give the Committee some information to show that it was desirable to extend this great boon to the other parts of the country.
The increasing expense which this House was continually asked to vote entitled them to ask an inquiry. The capital account was approaching £500,000, which had been expended on the offices. This experiment was one in regard to which the Government did not seem disposed to give an adequate report or to grant an inquiry. It was not business for the Government to come and ask an increased sum of money, and that the House should vote it light-heartedly without inquiry as to whether the money was well spent or not. He was entirely unprejudiced on the question. 1388 Complaints had been made by responsible persons, and that seemed to him to be quite sufficient ground for demanding an inquiry into the matter. This was not entirely a matter for lawyers. He was not one who would support a system, whether old or new, which merely brought grist to the mills of the lawyers. He thought they prospered fairly well without any addition from the legislation of this House. He read, the other day, a very interesting report from which it appeared that the building societies of this country were very greatly exercised on the question the Committee were now discussing. It appeared to him that the majority of these societies thought that the Act was bad, while others thought there was something to be said for it. These societies were concerned in cheap and efficient methods of transfer, and they wanted inquiry into the question. He thought these building societies had a claim for consideration. They were not interested from the legal point of view, but rather the reverse. What they wanted was that less money should be paid to the lawyers, and that they should obtain cheaper land on which to place their buildings. He was inclined to base his case for inquiry even more on their request than on the request that came from lawyers in all parts of the country. He thought a very strong case had been made out for inquiry. It need not involve any great expense. A few lawyers could be appointed to inquire whose interest it was to get land easily and cheaply transferred. It would be a simple thing to get a Committee which would give perfect satisfaction not only to this House, but also to the County Councils, which had a legitimate claim to know about the working of the Act. He called attention to the fact that in connection with this Vote there were footnotes explaining extra emoluments for officials. That was a practice which had prevailed in connection with old offices and it had been strongly condemned. But here was a brand new office, and the same abuse was allowed to creep in. He hoped that the Attorney-General would give that matter his careful consideration. He moved the reduction of the vote by £1,000, stating that he would go to a division unless an inquiry was promised by the Government.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum not exceeding £27,144, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Whitley.)
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the hon. Member in objecting to the system of footnotes in regard to particular salaries said he was astonished that they should occur in connection with a new Department. He would remind the hon. Member that that might be due to the fact that some of the officials were taken over from other departments, and that this would involve a modification of the arrangements with regard to their salaries. After all, that was a very small matter. The hon. Member had referred to certain matters in connection with the expenses of the land registry. Of course there was some expense, but that was absolutely inevitable. If they were to have a Department of this kind for the purpose of registering titles, it was natural enough that there should sometimes be a certain feeling of soreness on the part of those who were asked to make additional payments at the time the transfer took place, in order to cover the expense of registration for the first time. The building societies had objected to these charges, but the question was whether what was done under the Act was not worth paying for. It was only in the course of years that they would realise the effect of that for which they were now paying, and he could not help thinking that the hon. Members for South Islington and Halifax were just a little too soon in asking the Government to institute a tribunal for the purpose of inquiring into, and reporting on the general policy of the new system. The facts were known, and the real question was whether those concerned would not ultimately reap the benefit, which was a very great one indeed, and which was well worth paying for.
He could not understand why it should be asserted that a land registry did not offord any additional security. It was clear that it did; if a man who wanted at buy a bit of land knew that, when the system came into operation, he could, without extended inquiry, and without going back forty years and it might be more, get an absolute title as against all the world. He thought that was an object which was well worth endeavouring 1390 to attain to, and paying something for. Then if a possessory title was registered, it was quite true that an absolute title could not be acquired as against conflicting interests at the time of registry. But there was this enormous security, that no dealing with the land could take place after that registration; that no title could be conferred without reference to the registry. Those who grumbled at the present charge which was incurred, were sometimes forgetful that, in the course of affairs in this world, it was necessary often to bear a present burden for the sake of a future benefit. His hon. friend had referred to the evil of what he called officialism. It was perfectly obvious that they could not have a great system of registration such as was enjoyed by other countries, without having officers to work it; and it would be found that the range of direction in which the State could promote a public utility without an official staff was singularly restricted. His hon. friend said that the measure had been passed on the understanding that it was to be of a tentative nature; and he read some extracts from a leading article in The Times in that sense. They were all perfectly agreed that the measure was passed through the House on the understanding that it was to be applied gradually in one county after some delay, and that it was not to be extended to the other counties unless the County Councils desired to have that extension. That was in fact more than an understanding, it was embodied in the Act. He knew nothing of any other understanding. He was not himself in charge of that Bill and took hardly any part in its progress through the House; but he was present a good part of the time and had refreshed his memory by looking through the debates on the Bill, and he could not find any trace of any further promise or understanding of any sort or kind as to any inquiry. He thought that some passages in the speech of his hon. friend the Member for Islington conveyed an impression which, he was sure, was a little misleading. Certainly, apart from the express enactment, or the modification of it, for the purpose of securing the progress of this great and beneficial change in the law, there was no understanding that he ever heard of that any inquiry would be held.
§ SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he had not said that it was expressly stated that there was to be an inquiry, but that the measure was passed as an experiment and tentatively, and that its application was to be gradual. That was the understanding.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that that was exactly what he had stated. It was an experiment in the sense that it was to be applied after some delay in one county and was not to be extended to other counties unless the County Councils wanted it. But from some passages in his hon. friend's speech he led the Committee to believe that there was an understanding that there was to be some inquiry. It was right that it should be understood by the Committee and by the public that there was no promise, so far as he was aware, either express or implied, that there was to be an inquiry. Now he came to the question whether it was desirable that an inquiry should now be held into this subject. The inquiry referred to by the hon. Member for Halifax was an inquiry which bore merely on the organisation and working of the office. It was an inquiry held by several highly competent gentlemen, one of whom was selected for nomination by the Law Society of which his hon. friend the Member for Islington was president. These gentlemen made numerous suggestions in regard to the working of the Department, and these suggestions had been embodied in rules which were now actually in force. The inquiry now asked for was of a totally different kind—an inquiry into the general question of policy which the House determined when it passed this measure into law. He did not say for a moment that the decision of this House, and of Parliament as a whole, when this measure became law, was to preclude any inquiry, at the proper time, into the way in which the measure worked and with the view of deciding whether it was doing good. But the question arose, were they now in any better position for holding an inquiry before a Committee such as, he understood, his hon. friend suggested—viz., an inquiry on the general policy of the measure? All the materials that could be brought, in the nature of things, 1392 before that Committee would be details of the expenditure that had been incurred in the first stage. They would have members of various societies, including a good many members of the legal profession, coming forward and giving the Committee details as to what the measure had cost. But then, in order to get an answer to the question as to the general policy of the measure, they must realise what would be the ultimate effect of that registration for which they were at this stage paying. Surely that was hardly a matter for investigation by such a Committee as his hon. friend foreshadowed. That was the question of general policy—the very question which the House had already determined.
§ SIR ALBERT ROLLITInto the operation of the Act.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYYes, into the operation of the Act; he quite agreed. But until the Act had been in operation for some time that inquiry would not be of any great service.
§ SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that the term of three years operation was the period distinctly mentioned as the time for the experiment.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he must repeat that there was no expectation held out when the Bill was passing through the House that there would be an inquiry after three years or any other specific period.
§ SIR ALBERT ROLLITIt was said that the Bill was an experiment, and for three years.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYIt was an experiment for this one county. Anything said by the Lord Chancellor, either in the letter to which reference had been made or elsewhere, had been absolutely carried out, not only in the letter but in the spirit, and every pledge given had been absolutely fulfilled. So that the question his hon. friend raised was whether such a Committee as he suggested, would be able to throw any light on the general question of policy and as to the advantages of registration, 1393 and whether it would be worth while to go to that expense for the purpose of bringing one county under the operation of the Act? He very respectfully suggested to the Committee that this inquiry would be a little premature. It would be bringing into undue relief the initial charges, because the Committee would necessarily not be in a position to say what advantages the Act would bring in the future, and they would be pulling up the plant to see how it was growing.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)said he did not think the Attorney-General was quite correct in his assumption that this Department had paid its way. There was no statement on the Estimates of that portion of the income which came from the old Middlesex Land Registry. On the Estimates the expenses of the Land Registry Department were calculated at £48,144 which was a net increase of £8,951 on the preceding year, with an additional expenditure charged to other items of over £12,000. Therefore the Department was costing at the present £60,000 a year. The fees were estimated at £74,000, but unless they knew what amount was included in respect of the Middlesex Land Registry, which was practically a sinecure and which now went into the coffers of the existing Land Registry, they could not say how income and expenditure really stood. He did not say that this was an extravagant office, nor did he deny that they could not have a change of this sort without a good deal of annual expense. As to the general question, his hon. friend the Member for York would remember that when this Act was being passed in 1897, the hon. Member for York moved that the House should go into Committee on the Bill that day three months. They were then towards the end of the session and it was hopeless for the Government to carry the Bill in the shape it then stood. The First Lord of the Treasury, who said he had listened with interest and attention to the debate, intervened to make what he called a conciliatory proposal, because he understood that the whole objection to the Bill arose from the compulsory clause. The Government, the right hon. Gentleman said, were prepared to make a compromise and introduce an Amendment 1394 by which it would be impossible to force on any County Council the provisions of the Bill without the initiation and the consent of that county. He thought that the offer of the First Lord of the Treasury was very fair on the part of the Government, and he urged his hon. friend to accept it, and his hon. friend the Member for York withdrew his Amendment. The matter was not definitely settled that night because the Committee wanted to see the exact words by which the Attorney-General would carry out the proposal. Next day he ventured to state to the House that he was willing to accept the statement of the Attorney-General; but to prevent any possible misconstruction he wished to state what he understood to be the position. "In the first instance the Lord Chancellor might select any county he thought proper, and there was a distinct understanding that that county was to be the administrative County of London. The Lord Chancellor might give notice to the County Council of London, and they would have the option, within three months, of determining whether or not they would have this compulsion. If they said they would not, then the Lord Chancellor would have to select some other county in which to try the experiment; but assuming they did accept it, and assuming the Act to be put in force in London, then no further order was to be made under this Act at all for three years. At the expiration of three years no order could be made by the Privy Council unless and until a County Council asked for it in accordance with the terms of the Act." There was no doubt an impression, to some extent in the legal profession, that the three years having elapsed, the experiment, so to speak, being over, that the Lord Chancellor had now the power to introduce this compulsory registration in any county he thought proper. That was not the case. The Lord Chancellor could not introduce it into any county which did not take the initiative. At the close of his remarks the First Lord of the Treasury was good enough to say that he (Sir Henry Fowler) "had, with perfect lucidity, explained the arrangement; and that it would be carried out." That was the only understanding which was arrived at. No doubt a period of three years was mentioned; but that was only an indication of the time which the 1395 Lord Chancellor thought fair in which to test the experiment.
He understood that the Attorney-General objected to the proposal on the ground that it was premature; but he did not object to it on the ground of principle. Parliament had decided, as far back as 1875, that a proper, economical, and effective—and to be effective it must be compulsory—system of land registration ought to be embodied in the laws of this country. He knew nothing personally about the working of the Act, but he was speaking the opinion of competent persons, viz., members of the legal profession who were familiar with the working of the Act, and persons who had to pay fees for the transfer of land. The general impression was, rightly or wrongly, that the present system was dilatory and unnecessarily expensive, and did not give that protection to title which Parliament no doubt intended to give. He did not say whether that allegation was true or not; but, it was made by persons who were not anonymous or inexperienced. Surely the great building societies of England and Wales ought to know something of the transfer of land, and their views were adverse to the views which prevailed in 1897. The Attorney-General said that there was no ground for those statements; but all his hon. friend asked for was that these conflicting facts should be brought before an independent tribunal, not to reverse the decision of Parliament but for the guidance of the County Councils. The County Councils, before they became involved in expenditure, should know whether it would be satisfactory or not. They should not be at the mercy of advocates recommending different systems. No inquiry could be more satisfactory than a Departmental Committee or a Committee of the House of Commons. It was not a Party but an administrative question, on which he declined to express any opinion, because he had not sufficient evidence before him. They asked the Government, not in any menacing or Party manner, to consider the question of an inquiry. He hoped his hon. friend the Member for Halifax would not ask the Committee to divide. To express an opinion on the question now would only have the effect of misleading the public. The proper course was to impress on the 1396 Government that there was a bonâ fide desire to know whether the administration, not the organisation, was working efficiently and economically, and whether the system was such that the County Councils ought to take it up.
§ MR. E. BECKETT FABER (Hampshire, Andover)said they were not satisfied with the working of the Act in Yorkshire. He did not intend to touch upon the legal aspect of the case, but from a business point of view he found there were very strong objections to the Act in the minds of the business men in the West Riding. Without entering upon the question of policy, he wished to point out, as an example of the inconvenience, that before it was passed, if a man went into his bankers with his deeds in his hand the banker looked at the deeds and was able to lend money on them then and there. Under this Act the banker could no longer do that, and it was necessary for him to tell his customer that he could not lend the money without first searching the registry at Wakefield. He had the privilege, when this Act came into force some years ago, of representing the country bankers at the London office, and he had the opportunity of interviewing Mr. Brickdale when this question of registration was discussed. The difficulties were then pointed out, and it was arranged that a certificate should be given to anyone depositing deeds with the Registration Office in London, and on that certificate should be set out all particulars of the land, so that the customer could take the certificate to his banker and borrow money upon it. If his memory served him rightly Mr. Brickdale gave them to understand that this Act would be first applied to London, and before it was applied to any other county they should have a statement as to its working in the County of London. During the last few months the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire had been asking for guidance as to their actions in this matter. They did not know when they should bring the Act into force and they could not come to a decision until they had some evidence put before them of the working of the Act in London
§ SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that the matter was a very important one. No doubt there was a great ferment in the profession against the Act. Men who were long accustomed to deal with deeds were haunted by apprehension as to the effect of the Act. There was no doubt that for many years the influence of solicitors, and also to a certain extent of the Bar, was directed against this system of the registration of titles; and that was one of the reasons why this country was so far behind other nations in this matter. In Australia a man might purchase 20,000 acres of land, and get an absolute title at the registration office in twenty minutes. So it would be in this country if those who urged this reform and supported the Government when it brought forward the beneficent Act of 1897 could succeed in getting a fair opportunity for it to work. The fact was, when they were beginning a system they could not say, in the first instance, that all the land in a particular county should be registered. What had been said was that if there was a transfer of land it should be by registration. In the first place, it became necessary to establish a title, and once that was done by a transfer having been registered, for all time to come the expenses would become infinitely less until they came to be practically nothing, and the value of property would be considerably enhanced. The scheme for the registration of land was not one to which any particular person was entitled to lay a claim. It was a great scheme, which existed in all our self-governing colonies, —notably in Australia—and in nearly the whole civilised world, and there was now happily a prospect of its being adopted in this country. The inquiry that had been asked for could at best be only a mutilated inquiry, and could only yield imperfect results, because it could only be an inquiry into the operation of the Act, and therefore could only inform the Committee with regard to the most cumbersome and expensive stages. It would only disclose half the truth, and that half which was of the least benefit to the community. The Lord Chancellor supported this Act, the late Lord Chancellor supported it, the late Attorney-General—present Lord Chief Justice—cooperated with him (Sir Robert Reid) in 1398 trying to pass it, and he believed the present Attorney-General also. He hoped hon. Members would not interpose objections, however well meant they might be, to the extension of what was a great Act.
§ MR. BUTCHER (York)supported the desire that had been expressed for an inquiry into its administration and the effect of its working in London. It was the duty of the County Councils to consider the question of extending the Act to their counties. That was a most important duty to impose upon them and this inquiry was necessary to give them proper materials to enable them to form a decision. The late Attorney-General seemed to think that in asking for this inquiry they were desirous of destroying the Act. That was not their intention at all. They only desired to put the County Councils in possession of information upon which they would be able to act. He thought the County Councils would be well advised to wait until they got that information, and he did not see how any County Council could ask for an extension of the Act to their county without first having the materials supplied to them by which they could be guided as to whether it would be beneficial or not. He did not regard this as a lawyer's question but from the point of view of those who were interested in the cheap and quick transfer of land. Building societies often had large transactions in land and mortgages, and it would be calamitous to adopt any system which would increase the charges made for dealing with land. Then again the bankers desired to be able to transact their business, in their own interests and in the interests of their clients, both cheaply and quickly. It was important that before this Act was extended all over the country there should be some means of finding out whether it would benefit the country at large. The late Attorney-General went into a panegyric upon the system of land transfer under this Act; on that subject he did not wish to say anything, and in regard to it he had a perfectly open mind. This question was not a new one. The experiment was first made in 1862, and there was another in 1875, but that failed, and it was remarkable if the system was so simple as the late 1399 Attorney-General represented it to be that the people of the country should have been so exceedingly stupid as not to have adopted it before. They wished to keep an entirely open mind as to whether the Act would work well or for ill, but they certainly ought to acquaint the County Councils with the result of its working. When the Bill was originally brought in it did not contain any provision whereby there should be an experimental working for three years, but in order to get the Bill through the House the First Lord of the Treasury said it would be applied to the County of London for three years and would not be applied to the other counties unless they asked for it. The Act had now been in operation for five years; millions of money had changed hands through the transfer of property under this system, and he should have thought that, if an inquiry were instituted, it would be possible to ascertain not merely the present cost, but whether that cost was likely to have a good result in the future. If the Government were satisfied that the present movement was premature, he would accept their decision, but it should be clearly understood that the Attorney-General accepted the view that an inquiry was necessary, and that before the County Councils could be asked to extend the Act to their respective counties they ought to be informed of the result of its operation in London by means of an inquiry.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAYI never said that.
§ MR. BUTCHERsaid he understood the hon. and learned Member to say that an inquiry might hereafter become necessary, and what would be the good of an inquiry except to enable County Councils to form a judgment as to the desirability of applying the Act? It would be folly for the Councils to extend the operations of the Act to their respective areas without knowing how the system had worked in London, and he hoped the Attorney-General would give an assurance that in due time an inquiry should be made.
§ MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield), as one who had taken an 1400 interest in this question for some years, earnestly hoped the Attorney-General would reconsider his decision. County Councils hesitated to put the Act into operation because they knew the system was being tried in London, and they wanted to know the result. There was an urgent necessity for a radical alteration in the present system of land transfer. Great Britain was practically the only civilised country in the world in which the antiquated and tortuous system of land tenure under which we suffered, was permitted to continue. Why should the House of Commons, dominated by the interests of lawyers, refuse to allow this reform? He should certainly support the Amendment.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid the reply of the Attorney-General was altogether unsatisfactory. If the hon. and learned Member would promise an inquiry at the end of seven years, he personally would be quite satisfied. If the Act had all the virtues ascribed to it by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, he desired to see it extended to his constituents. Why should they be deprived of its advantages for an indefinite period simply because the Attorney-General would not appoint a Committee whose Report would enable the County Councils to decide as to the desirability of extending the Act? Unless an assurance was given that an inquiry would be made, within a reasonable time, he would be compelled to go to a division.
§ SIR ALBERT ROLLITthought the Committee were indebted to the hon. Member for Halifax for his efforts in this matter. It was true they had not received all the assurances they desired, but the debate had produced two notable admissions—first, that there were hardships and objections in the administration of the Act, and, secondly, that time might overcome them. The fair in erence was that after a time an inquiry would be justified, and, he assumed, would take place. After those admissions and the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, he suggested the Amendment should be withdrawn.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid his impression was that the withdrawal of such a Motion wiped it out of the mind of the Minister concerned. The process of passing through the lobbies seemed to impress the matter on the Minister's mind. They had not got an inquiry this year, but possibly, if they took a
§ division now, they might get it next year.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 215. (Division List No. 96.)
1403| AYES. | ||
| Allan, Sir William (Gateshead) | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | Rea, Russell |
| Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud | Helme, Norval Watson | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Asher, Alexander | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | Rickett, J. Compton |
| Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) | Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E. | Russell, T. W. |
| Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Black, Alexander William | Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Bryce, Right Hon. James | Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Burns, John | Joicey, Sir James | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Burt, Thomas | Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Caldwell, James | Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe |
| Cameron, Robert | Labouchere, Henry | Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.) |
| Cawley, Frederick | Langley, Batty | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Cremer, William Randal | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) |
| Crombie, John William | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Tomkinson, James |
| Crooks, William | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Toulmin, George |
| Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan | Leng, Sir John | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Lewis, John Herbert | Wallace, Robert |
| Edwards, Frank | Lough, Thomas | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan |
| Elibank, Master of | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall | Weir, James Galloway |
| Ellis, John Edward | Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Emmott, Alfred | Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone) | Murphy, John | Williams, O. (Merioneth) |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Woodhouse, Sir. J. T. (Huddersf'd |
| Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond | Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Partington, Oswald | |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton | Perks, Robert William | Mr. Buchanan and Mr. |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd | Pirie, Duncan V. | Soares. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Atkinson, Right Hon. John | Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy |
| Allsopp, Hon. George | Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H. | Bailey, James (Walworth) |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Austin, Sir John | Bain, Colonel James Robert |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Flower, Ernest | Myers, William Henry |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Forster, Henry William | Nicol, Donal Ninian |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey | Fyler, John Arthur | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds | Gardner, Ernest | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Garfit, William | Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn | Plummer, Walter R. |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks | Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Purvis, Robert |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Graham, Henry Robert | Randles, John S. |
| Bignold, Arthur | Greville, Hon. Ronald | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Bill, Charles | Groves, James Grimble | Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Gunter, Sir Robert | Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green |
| Bowles, Col. H. F. (Middlesex | Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Midd'x | Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis | Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Brassey, Albert | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Bull, William James | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Royds, Clement Molyneux |
| Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ | Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Heaton, John Henniker | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) | Helder, Augustus | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc | Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somerset, E. | Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry | Hogg, Lindsay | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Chapman, Edward | Hornby, Sir William Henry | Sloan, Thomas Henry. |
| Clive, Captain Percy A. | Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Smith, H. C. (North'umb Tyneside |
| Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Hoult, Joseph | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks |
| Coddington, Sir William | Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham | Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) |
| Coghill, Douglas Harry | Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R. | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk |
| Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Johnstone, Heywood | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge | Kenyon Slaney, Col. W. (Salop | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. | Kimber, Henry | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Knowles, Lees | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Cripps, Charles Alfred | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton) | Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R. | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham) | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Valentia, Viscount |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. | Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield |
| Denny, Colonel | Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E. | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S. | Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Lundon, W. | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas | Maconochie, A. W. | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) | Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.) | Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants. | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r | Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Morrison, James Archibald | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Younger, William |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Mount, William Arthur | |
| Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose | Muntz, Sir Philip A. | Sir Alexander Acland- |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute | Hood and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Flannery, Sir Fortescue | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) | |
| Allan, Sir William (Gateshead | Griffith, Ellis J. | Robinson, Brooks |
| Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud) | Guidon, Sir W. Brampton | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Asher, Alexander | Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale- | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Helme, Norval Watson | Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye |
| Austin, Sir John | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H. | Runciman, Walter |
| Bayley. Thomas (Derbyshire) | Hope, John Deans (Fife, West) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland |
| Black, Alexander William | Humphreys-Owen Arthur C. | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Hutchinson,Dr.CharlesFredk. | Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford) |
| Brigg, John | Johnstone, Heywood | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson | Joicey, Sir James | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Kearley, Hudson E. | Stevenson, Francis S. |
| Bull, William James | Kitson, Sir James | Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe) |
| Burt, Thomas | Labouchere, Henry | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E. |
| Butcher, John George | Langley, Batty | Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.) |
| Caldwell, James | Lawson, SirWilfrid (Cornwall) | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) |
| Cameron, Robert | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Tomkinson, James |
| Cawley, Frederick | Leng, Sir John | Toulmin, George |
| Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) | Lewis, John Herbert | Wallace, Robert |
| Cremer, William Randal | M`Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.) |
| Crombie, John William | Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe | Wason, E. (Clackmannan) |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Markham, Arthur Basil | Wason J. Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) | Morgan,J. Lloyd (Carmarthen | Weir, James Galloway |
| Davies, M.Vaughan- (Cardign | Murphy John | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.) |
| Dunn, Sir William | Palmer, SirCharlesM(Durham | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Edwards, Frank | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Emmott, Alfred | Perks, Robert William | Woodhouse, Sir J T (huddersfd |
| Faber, E. B. (hants, W.) | Pirie Duncan V. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Farquharson, Dr. Robert | Rea, Russell | |
| .Fenwick, Charles | Reckitt, Harold James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | Mr. Whitlfy and Mr. |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J. | Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) | Charles Hobhouse. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Brassey, Albert | Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Campbell,JH.M. (Dublin Univ. | Dorington,Rt.Hon. SirJohnE. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Carson, Rt. Hon, Sir Edw. H. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Cautley, Henry Strother | Doxford,Sir William Theodore |
| Arrol, Sir William | Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.) | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm | Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin |
| Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt. HonSirH. | Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J A (Wore | Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry | Faber, George Denison (York) |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Chapman, Edward | Fardell, Sir T. George |
| Baird, John George Alexander | Charrington, Spencer | Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward. |
| Balfour.Rt.Hon.A.J.(Manch'r | Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith, |
| Balfour,RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds | Coghill, Douglas Harry | Fergusson,Rt Hn. Sir J. (Mar'r |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst |
| Barry, Sir Fras. T. (Windsor) | Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. |
| Bartley, Sir George C. T. | Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrint,S. | Finlay, SirRohert Bannatyne |
| Bathurst,Hon.Allfen Benjamin | Cripps, Charles Alfred | Fisher, William Hayes |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry C. | Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) | Fison, Frederick William |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton.) | FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose |
| Bignold, Arthur | Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile | Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond |
| Bigwood, James | Dalkeith, Earl of | Fitzroy,Hon.Edward Algernon |
| Bill, Charles | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Flannery, Sir Fortescue |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Denny, Colonel | flower, Ernest |
| Bond, Edward | Dickinson, Robert Edmond | Forster, Henry William |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Fyler, John Arthur |
| Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn) | Dirnsdale,Rt.11on.SirJosephC. | Galloway, William Johnson |
| Gardner, Ernest | Maconochie, A. W. | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehause) |
| Garfit William | M'Killop Jas. (Stirlingshire) | Saunderson, Rt. Hn.Col. E. J. |
| Gibbs,HnA.G.H(City of Lond | Majendie, James A. H. | Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln) |
| Gordon,Hn.J.E. (Elgin & Nrn | Martin, Richard Biddulph | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon | Maxwell,RtHnSirH.E(Wigen | Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew |
| Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim | Maxwell,W. J. H. (Dumfriessh. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Goulding, Edward Alfred | Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. | Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) |
| Graham, Henry Robert | Middlemore, JohnThrogmorton | Sinclair, Louis (Ramford) |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Sloan. Thomas Henry |
| Greene,Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed. | Mootagu, Hon. J . Scott (Hants.) | Smith, H. C(Northm'b tyneside |
| Greville, Hon. Ronald | More,Robt. Jasper(Shropshire | Smith,JamesParker (Lanarks. |
| Groves, James Grimble | Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.) | Spencer, Sir E. (W .Bromwich) |
| Gunter, Sir Robert | Morrison, James Archibald | Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk) |
| Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. | Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer | Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset |
| Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G.(Midx | Mount, William Arthur | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Hamilton, Marg. of (Londondy | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Stewart, Sir M. J. M`Taggart |
| Hardy, Laurence (Kent,Ashfd | Muntz, Sir Philip A. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Murray,RtHnA.Graham(Bute | Stroyan, John |
| Heath, James (Staffs., N. w.) | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Heaton, John Henniker | Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath | Sturt, Hn. Humphrey Napier |
| Helder, Augustus | Myers, William Henry | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Hoare, Sir Samuel | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Hobhouse,Rt.HnH(Sorarst, E. | O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Hogg, Lindsay | Orr-Ewing,C rles Li dsay | Tomlinson, Si(Wm. Edw. M. |
| Hornby, Sir William Henry | Palmer, Walter (Salisbury) | Tritton, Charles Ernest |
| Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Parkes, Ebenezer | Valentia, Viscount |
| Hoult, Joseph | Pemberton, John S. G. | Vincent,ColSirC.E.H(Sheffied |
| Howard, Jno (Kent, Foyer' hm | Plummer, Walter R. | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Howard, J. (Midd., Tott' ham | Pretyman, Ernest George | Walrond,Rt.Hn.SirWilliamH. |
| Hudson, George Bickersteth | Pryce-Jones,Lt.-Col.Edward | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Hutton, John (Yorks, .V R.) | Purvis. Robert | Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts) |
| Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert | Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. Lloyd |
| Jessel,Captain HerbertMerton | Randles, John S. | Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne) |
| Jones, David Brymnor(Swansea, | Reid, James (Greenock) | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Col.W.(Salop | Reid,Sir R,Threshie(Dumfries | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Knowles, Lees | Remnant, James Farquharson | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow | Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine | Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.) |
| Lawrence,SirJoseph (Monm'th | Ridley,Hon.M.W (Stalybridge | Wodehouse,Rt. Hn.E.E. (Bath |
| Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool | Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Lawson,JohnGrant(YorksN.R | Ritchie,RtHon.Chas.Thomson | Wortley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson |
| Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham) | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield | Wortley, Rt. Nn, C. B. Stuart |
| Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | Wylie, Alexander |
| Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N S | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | Younger, William |
| Long, Col. Chas. W .(Evesham | Royds, Clement Molyneux | |
| Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S | Russell, T. W. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- | Sir Alexander Acland- |
| Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander | Hood and Mr. Anstruther. |
Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ 3. £25,000, to complete the sum for County Courts.
§ 4. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £26,390, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904, for the salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the pay and expenses of officers of Metropolitan Police employed on special duties, and the salaries and expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary."
1404§ MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.)said he thought a great deal of blame was put upon the police force which they did not rightly deserve. They were a body which performed great civil duties, and the fault did not always lie with them. The fault was that there were too few of them. As was often said of the British Army, they were splendid soldiers, but there were too few of them. He should be able to lay before the Committee reasons why there ought be a considerable increase in the police force within the metropolitan area. The police force had not grown with the population. The police area extended to within a fifteen miles radius from Charing Cross, and included such populous districts as Enfield, Barnet, Wimbledon, Kingston, 1405 Croydon and other places well known to hon. Members. Many of those suburbs were, as far as burglars were concerned, a regular paradise and a happy hunting ground. He knew of one case in Wimbledon in which the burglars came just after twelve o'clock at night with a horse and cart and stripped the whole first floor of everything without the slightest interruption. It seemed almost impossible that such an act should take place. Up to the year 1890 the police were regularly augmented by about 400 annually, but after that date only very insignificant additions had been made to the force. In 1890 the population of the metropolitan police district was 5,500,000, and the police force numbered 15,725 men. In the year 1900 the population was 6,500,000, and the number of policemen was 15,847, or 122 more than in 1890. The population during that period increased by 1,000.000, and the Home Office thought the addition of 122 men was sufficient to meet the requirements of that increase in the population. He believed the Committee would agree with him that, under these. circumstances, there was a primâ facie case for the Home Secretary to explain.
In 1901, London grew to the extent of sixty miles of new streets, and there were 27,174 new houses built. That might seem impossible, but he wished the Committee to understand that the area included the districts immediately around London, such towns as Ilford, Enfield, and other places which had increased enormously, and almost beyond the range of imagination. In the ten years from 1890, there were 202,127 new houses built, and 2,643 new streets formed, representing 531 miles. All these additional houses and streets had to be looked after by a police force in 1900, which showed only 122 additional men as compared with the year 1890. That would be something if the whole number of police were available for police duties, but 1765 had to be deducted in respect of the number of men employed in the dockyards, patrolling gardens, and protecting many institutions, including the Houses of Parliament. That reduced the total number to 14,082 to do the whole of the police work of London. But even of that number they had to cut off 1,361 1406 who were permanently on sick leave or absent from duty for other reasons. That reduced the force to 12,721, and in that number were included superintendents, inspectors, and sergeants, and from the portly appearance of those officers it did not appear to him that they did an enormous amount of work. Practically the number of policemen for street duty was 12,721; of that number a certain proportion were on night duty. Of course that was the most important and the most dangerous part of their work. The number on night duty was 7,632. They went on duty at 10 p.m. and remain till 6 a.m. The rest of the policemen were divided into two shifts, each of 2,544, for the day service. Half of them commenced work at 6 a.m. and remained on duty till 2 p.m. The other set went on duty at 2 p.m. and left off at 10 p.m. The estimated population of London in this area was 6,678,808, and that meant that there was one policeman for 2,625 persons, which was considerably less than the average in 1890, when there was one policeman for 2,000. He hoped the Home Secretary would tell the Committee that he was impressed with the dangers which overawed His Majesty's subjects, that he had in his mind the increasing of the police of the Metropolitan area, and that he would distinguish himself by providing a remedy for the dangers referred to.
The rateable property in London had increased largely, as everybody knew. In 1890 it was £35,500,000, and in 1900 £44,000,000. That, of course, was satisfactory as showing the growth of property in the Metropolis, but it was not satisfactory to the owners if their prosperity was imperilled by the absence of police protection. He would not go into the statistics showing the increase in the loss of property during the past ten years, but he could inform the Committee that there had been an increase. There were in the official returns proofs that the effectiveness of the police had weakened. Street accidents had nearly doubled since 1890. In 1891 the killed and injured in this area were 5,784, and in 1901 the number was 9,293. The danger to life in the streets had no doubt increased on account of motor-cars and cycles being introduced. Now it required very accurate eyes to calculate 1407 whether one could escape being run down by these vehicles. Fewer hackney drivers had been summoned before the magistrates in 1900 than in the previous year, the numbers being 9,758 as against 11,419. He hoped that this decrease was because of better conduct and more skilful driving. Protection of property was a small thing in comparison with the protection of the public in the streets. Where there was no control by the police there was frequently disorder, and very often it became absolute lawlessness, and from it arose the serious evils which were generally classified under the name of hooliganism. A good deal of this, he believed, arose from the monotonous lives which were led by many young persons in London, and those people who had greater advantages of education and birth must feel sympathy for lads who were misled, and had fewer opportunities for improvement, and who had less self control. If a gang of lads were allowed to run wild in the streets they indulged in different forms of mischief, and as a result they had those cases of the use of the knife and other lethal weapons, which had so often to be deplored. They all remembered the case of Murray Spicer, who was attacked in the neighbourhood of Tavistock Place, near Euston Road. In that case a respectable man was violently attacked in a respectable neighbourhood. To-day he read in the Daily Chronicle an account of a case in which some foreigners in the same neighbourhood had formed themselves into a gang, and lived by robbery and other disreputable means. He thought the attention of the Home Secretary ought to be called to these facts. The right hon. Gentleman might be able to point out some redeeming features which had not presented themselves to him. He thought that the evil of hooliganism might, to some extent, be dealt with by having habitual offenders segregated for the rest of their lives, afterit had become evident that their nefarious occupation was professional. He was not lawyer sufficient to say what the exact number of years should be, but he thought the Home Secretary should turn his attention to the range of facts laid before the public by Mr. Anderson. That gentleman had pointed out that there were 300 or 400 men 1408 well known to the police, their names, habitations, and how many times they had been convicted, who devoted themseves to training up young criminals. They did not mind spending a couple of years in prison, and when they came out they went for a trip to Monte Carlo to spend there their nefarious gains, acquired before being convicted. But for these criminals many persons who had drifted into crime might have been decent members of society. He begged to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £26,290, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Schwann.)
§ MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty)said he noticed that there was a reduction of £5,000 in the cost of police officers specially employed. He thought that, instead of a decrease, there ought to have been an increase of men to look after motor-cars, the curse of our streets. He had called the attention of the Home Secretary that afternoon to the fact that, at a quarter-past four on Monday last. a motor-car driver set at defiance the orders of the police at the crossing from Parliament Street to Palace Yard. But he had got no satisfaction, and he intended to follow the matter up until he got satisfaction. More police were wanted. They should have powers to deal with these motor-car drivers. He suggested that the police should be provided with a lasso, to catch the drivers such as he had seen at a recent exhibition. Perhaps the Prime Minister would suffer; but the right hon. Gentleman must take his chance, and the law must be no respecter of persons. Police officers might also be provided with motor bicycles for the pursuit of runaway motor-car drivers. There certainly ought to be numbers on motor-car, although that was a matter which, he assumed, required legislation. The President of the Local Government Board and the Home Secretary, should not allow the existing state of matters to continue. It was for these Departments to devise some means by which the police could effect the capture of reckless drivers who had no more regard for 1409 human life than they had for flies. He hoped they would have some assurance from the Home Secretary that he would take some steps in the matter. He had a great deal of sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, who was new to his office, but it was his business to inquire into this serious public danger. This was not solely the complaint of one Member. Judging from the cheers from both sides of the House, it was a general grievance, and there was a general desire that something should be done to put down the furious driving of motor-cars.
§ DR. HUTCHINSON (Sussex, Rye)thought it would be well if the Colonial Secretary were to descend from the empyrean heights of African mists, and come to hear this discussion. He thought this question was too trivial for the Imperial Parliament. The House should be left to grapple with bigger matters, and the time of Parliament should not be taken up with discussions on managing the street traffic of London, or preventing burglaries in suburban villas. Such small matters ought to be delegated to some other body.
§ DR. HUTCHINSONsaid he only wanted to draw attention to the fact that these were purely municipal questions.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)said that for his part he thought that the life, liberty, and comfort of one single citizen of London were of more importance to the House thanthe millions in Sokoto, or any outlandish part of Africa. He believed that delegation would be desirable, but they had not got delegation, and this was the only opportunity which they had of calling attention to what was going on in the Metropolis. His friend had complained of what took place in regard to motor-cars. He did not agree with him that it would be necessary to increase the number of police, because if a motor-car was rushing past, there would be no possibility of the police stopping it 1410 unless a large force flung themselves on the ground before it. His hon. friend had suggested the use of the lasso, but he suspected it would probably prove just as dangerous to the innocent passer-by as to the motor-car driver. He urged on the right hon. Gentleman that it was very desirable that these cars should be numbered. They could not really stop the motor-cars when they were found to be going at an excessive pace, or when the drivers were disobeying the police, but if the cars were numbered the men would be known, and could be punished. He thought that if a few of these people were haled before the police magistrate and fined, an end would be put to what was becoming an abuse and a pest.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,) Kent, St. Augustine'ssaid the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty had asked him about an accident, or what was very nearly an accident, near Palace Yard. He had applied to the police for information on the subject, and the answer he had received was that an accident had not been reported to them, and therefore presumably the police on duty did not think the occurrence of sufficient importance to call the attention of the Commissioner of Police to it. He agreed, on different grounds, however, with his two hon. friends that some legislation was becoming essential in regard to the regulation of motor-cars. Such legislation, as the House knew, was in contemplation, and would be introduced by the President of the Local Government Board. The hon. Member had called attention to the decrease of £5,000 in the Vote for the expense of officers specially employed, and he argued from that, that if this reduction had not been made, there would have been a much larger number of officers in London for the purpose of watching and preventing the excessive speed of motorcars. He would point out, however, that these specially employed officers were not engaged for general police work in London, certainly not in connection with motorcars, but only at ports and in connection with public buildings. The hon. Member for North Manchester had complained that the numbers of the Metropolitan Police Force had not kept pace with the increase 1411 of the population—not that they were inefficient, but that they were not sufficient. The hon. Member had pointed out that whereas the population had increased since 1880 by something like 2,000,000, there had been a very small corresponding increase in the numbers of the Police Force. On looking into the Returns furnished to him, he found that the population in London in 1880 was about 4,706,000, and the number of effective police was about 9,640. Last year, with a population of over 6,700,000, there were 14,470 effective police, to whom the addition of another 100 had been sanctioned recently. The large increase which had been alluded to as having taken place between 1880 and 1890 was due to the particular necessities of the moment. That period included the dynamite outrages and the subsequent scare. The increases of 1900-01 were not, he admitted, as large as they might have been; but this was accounted for by the fact that, owing to the continuance of the war, recruitments had been much smaller than usual. The Commissioner of Police felt that it was desirable to wait for filling up the numbers until a more efficient supply of recruits could be secured. The figures which he had given did not include any of the men employed on special duty or in dockyards. Moreover, there had been during recent years a direct increase of effectiveness by the withdrawal of men as far as possible from all non-effective duties, so that the figures did not show the real amount of increase. In addition to that there had been since the early years which the hon. Member had quoted a very large increase in the number of new stations, of police signal-boxes, and of fixed points where constables were to be found.
He had not the figures showing the proportion of police to population for the period 1890–1900, but he would give the figures for the twenty years ending with the latter date. During that time the population of the Metropolitan Police district increased from about 4,706,000 to over 6,700,000, or more than 39 per cent. During the same time the police force available for ordinary duties increased 1412 from about 9,640, to 13,900, or over 40 per cent. In 1880 there were 20.5 police for every 10,000 persons; in 1900 there were 21.2. This proved that there had been no falling away as compared with 1880, if it did not get rid of the argument that more police were needed. It was said that the police were not as numerous in the Metropolis as they were in other cities in the country; but comparing London with other centres of population, he found that in 1900 there were in London 21 policemen to 10,000 persons, in Birmingham, 12.8, Leeds, 11.6, Liverpool, 21.3, Manchester, 18.3, Sheffield, 12.2, and Bristol, 15.1. But efficiency was not to be tested entirely by numbers, but by the work which was performed. The hon. Member stated that the number of accidents in London had increased, and that the amount of lost and stolen property had also increased. He could not give the hon. Gentleman the figures he asked for at the moment; but he would point out that during the period dealt with by the hon. Gentleman, the County of London had enormously increased, and in addition to an enormous increase in the ordinary traffic, there was the motorcar traffic and also a large increase in the bicycle traffic. All that should be taken into consideration when comparing the number of accidents now with the number ten years ago.
The proof of the pudding was in the eating; and they had got to see what the police were able to do now as compared with what they were able to do ten years ago. There had been an increase in the arrests in London for misdemeanour and petty crime. Thirty thousand more such arrests took place in 1901 than in 1890. In serious crime there had been a very considerable decrease. In 1880 the number of felonies committed in the district was 25,368; in 1890 the number was 18,815; and in 1901, 18,918. There had, therefore, practically been no increase, notwithstanding the large increase of population in the last ten years, in the cases of serious crime compared with the state of things ten years ago. The effective strength of the police available had actually increased, because the whole of the force had been made more efficient. Surely it was better to have a force efficient 1413 and moderate in size rather than a larger force which might not be as efficient, and which would entail increased expenditure on the ratepayers of the Metropolis. He believed that, at the present time, the police force in London was perfectly adequate to meet all the requirements made on it, and that its efficiency was greater than at any other period of its history. With regard to hooliganism, he was glad to think that, by the action of the police and the salutary sentences passed by those who administered justice in London, this form of lawlessness had Practically ceased to exist. At all events it was nothing compared to what it was a few years ago. At the same time, he would not forget the warning which the hon. Member had given him, and he would watch very carefully the necessities of the situation. With regard to habitual criminals, he certainly thought some better means ought to be provided of dealing with habitual professional criminals, so that society might be more effectively protected against their misdoings. The matter was at the present moment engaging the attention of his Department.
§ MR. NUSSEY (Pontefract)called attention to a reduction in the pay and expenses of officers specially employed of £5,000, and said he would be much obliged if the Home Secretary would inform the Committee what public buildings sub-head B referred to, and what were the special services referred to.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid there was not a more admirable body in the world than the Metropolitan Police Force. A celebrated field-marshal of France had said only recently that the only forces he envied England the possession of were her men in blue, by which were meant the blue jackets on the one hand and the policemen on the other. The duties of the Metropolitan Police were largely concerned with traffic, and in his opinion the powers under which they dealt with the traffic of this great city had become insufficient for the purpose. They ought to have much larger powers. They should have the 1414 power to order that heavy vans should only pass over the streets between certain hours, and they ought to have power to characterise vehicles, especially that obnoxious and brutal vehicle the hooded van, in which the driver sat without being able to see on either side and only very imperfectly in front. That was a most fruitful source of accident and still more of bad temper and improper language. It might seem to be a small thing, but in the condition at which traffic had arrived it was a very large question. He thought the right hon. Gentleman should introduce a Bill which would readily pass the House giving the police power to deal with these matters. He should like in this House to bear his testimony to the extraordinary merit of the late Chief Commissioner of Police, Sir Edward Bradford. He was not only the handsomest man on a horse in all the processions in which he was engaged, but he was the best policeman we had ever had in this country. He handled his men with considerable discipline and when there came great occasions, such as we had had during his term of service, he had handled the police with the most masterly and consummate ability.
§ MR. CROMBIE (Kincardineshire)drew attention to the flagrant breaches of the law in supplying children with intoxieating liquors in bottles not properly sealed. He said, although a great many cases had been brought to the notice of the police no prosecutions had occurred, and all he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman now was whether he would instruct the police when they came across a particularly grave case, to report. it to the Commissioners.
§ MR. BURDETT COUTTS (Westminster)asked the Home Secretary if he contemplated meeting the request of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, whether he would extend and enlarge the powers. so as to control a new and very extraordinary feature of the street traffic in London. What were practically almost railway trains were, without any objection, apparently, of the authorities, taken off the line and run through the streets of London. There was not only a serious danger caused to life and obstruction to the traffic but he believed also injury to 1415 the buildings in London. Over and over again he had practically felt the buildings in which he happened to be, shaken almost to their foundations by these freight-trains which were allowed to run through the streets. The streets were constructed for ordinary vehicular traffic, and underneath there was a perfect network of tunnels and sewers and so forth, and they were never meant to carry these enormous weights. He thought if any further powers were given to the police, those powers ought to include power to deal with this class of traffic.
§ MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)complained of the way in which children were allowed to beg with boxes in the streets. It was, he said, impossible to come out of the large hotels in the Strand, even at midnight, without being pestered by children shaking money boxes in one's face. If a poor person begged for a penny he would at once be hauled off to Bow Street, but these children, as he understood, were sent out by charitable societies in South London with a box to beg, and he believed received threepence for every shilling they collected when the box, which was a sealed box, was opened.
§ SIR GEORGE BARTLEY (Islington, N.)said the question of the traffic of London and the powers of the police to regulate it was now being considered by the Traffic Commission. It was a very great question and the powers of the police were very little understood, but the whole matter was now being considered by the Traffic Commission.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid the question of collecting money in the streets was engaging his attention, and it was his intention to ask Parliament to give him power to deal with the matter. He would introduce a Bill as soon as possible, and he hoped it would have the support of the hon. Member opposite. He entirely agreed with his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn in his criticism with regard to hooded vans, and as to the necessity for wider powers being given to the police, but he did not think it would be courteous to the Royal Commission if any action were taken by the Government while they were sitting. 1416 The reduction of £5,000 was in regard to police employed on special duty at the ports and public buildings and institutions, where it had been found possible to reduce the number of men employed.
§ MR. SCHWANNasked leave to withdraw his Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Resolutions to be reported To morrow.
§ Committee to sit again this evening.