§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,250, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates."
§ Mr. MOOREI want to draw attention particularly to two prosecutions during the past year which are covered by this Vote, and I shall very shortly tell the Committee the nature of them, because I think the matter ought to be cleared up by the Government. There is an offence which, owing to the Government's leniency, has spread very much throughout Nationalist Ireland, and that is the habit of distributing and posting seditious leaflets and postcards urging everyone not to join the Army or Navy, or any of the King's forces. There have been several cases at the Winter Assizes. The case I have in mind is that of a man named James Haverty.
The CHAIRMANHow can the hon. Member connect that with this Supplementary Vote. It is not in order to go into the question of particular prosecutions, their merits or conduct. The hon. Gentleman can argue how this increase of expenditure has come about.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILMay I ask a question for the guidance of all of us in this very important matter. Suppose we find out, as I anticipate we shall, that this increase is caused in payment for particular prosecutions, surely it would be in order to discuss that prosecution?
The CHAIRMANWould not the best way be to put questions first, and that may help me to see what the money is for?
§ 8.0 P.M
§ The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell)It might save time if I gave a very short explanation of how this Vote comes about. The excess Vote, as the Committee already perceives from the White Paper, is £2,250. It is required on account of the extra costs and expenses incurred during the Winter Assize of 1912. The Winter Assize of 1912 proved to be, in the various provinces of Ireland, unusually heavy and protracted, and under this particular sub-head the cost and expenses we have to pay are those incurred for the payment of witnesses for the prosecution, and therefore they are unusually heavy, as I can show from the following facts: In the Winter Assize of 1912 there were 329 prisoners returned for trial as compared with only 217 in the previous Winter Assize of 1911, an increase of 50 per cent., and in the same way they lasted longer. Instead of lasting thirty-five days in the four provinces as in 1911, they lasted fifty-two days. That, of course, as everybody acquainted with legal proceedings knows, means that the witnesses are kept—I will not say dangling about, you cannot help these things, for a long time, according to the length of time to which the proceedings are protracted and these really are the reasons why this extra cost was incurred. The Winter Assizes of 1912 lasted longer than those of 1911, and that was occasioned for the most part by what is termed—a phrase I never like—ordinary crime. That is a term which has got a certain meaning in Ireland, but I confess it does not appeal to me when I consider what serious offences, some of them, at all events, are included under the head of ordinary crime. The cases are the following: Murder, for example, is some-times an ordinary crime and sometimes on account of the motives and circumstances connected with it it is spoken of as extraordinary crime, although both of them strike horror to us. At the 1911 Winter Assizes there were eight murder cases, whilst in 1912 there were sixteen. On the other hand, the attempts at murder in 1911 were four and in 1912 they were reduced to one. The cases of rape and indecent assault were heavier, and riots and affrays in 1911 were two, and they were nine in 1912. Unlawful assemblies had also increased. I do not draw any particular inference from that.
§ Lord HUGH CECILDo those figures include the Dublin disturbances?
§ Mr. BIRRELLNo. These costs come under an arrangement foreshadowed by Sir Robert Peel when introducing the Corn Law legislation, when he made a promise that Ireland would be benefited in a particular way, and that promise was carried out by a proceeding which now results in this, that counties in the first instance pay the expenses; they are then audited in an elaborate manner, and afterwards refunded. The actual payment by the Treasury is not made until after a very considerable time after the Assizes. The real facts justifying this extra cost are due to there being 329 prisoners, as against 213, and the Assizes lasted fifty-two days instead of thirty-five days. This estimate is due entirely to the expenses of the witnesses who had to be maintained And kept whilst the Assizes are proceeding. Under this sub-head we are dealing only with the expenses of witnesses. An analysis of the figures shows that this underestimate was due to the fact that we did not take into consideration the Winter Assizes being so exceptionally heavy in the way I have described.
§ Mr. MOOREI presume this Estimate will include the money paid to prosecutors appointed by the Attorney-General and Chief Crown Solicitors for the year 1913. These expenses go back nearly eighteen months, and they are certainly somewhat unusual. I take it that there must be items in this concerned with the Winter Assizes of last year, with which Crown prosecutors are concerned. Therefore, I take it, that it is open for us to discuss the Winter Assizes and prosecution and law charges throughout Ireland, leaving out the witnesses' expenses.
The CHAIRMANI think that would come on next year's Estimate. I understand that this Estimate refers to the Winter Assizes for 1912.
§ Mr. MOOREThe Chief Secretary knows that the witnesses' expenses incurred by the county have to be reimbursed for 1912 from the general expenses of prosecution, and defrayed in the actual year. I challenge the Chief Secretary to deny that statement, and therefore it comes within this Vote.
The CHAIRMANWould the hon. Member put the question to the Chief Secretary, "Does the additional sum asked for include any of the items to which he now refers?"
§ Mr. MOOREI ask the Chief Secretary to state whether the Vote we are asked for now contains any sums in addition to the witnesses' expenses for 1912 for other law expenses and law prosecutions for 1913?
§ Mr. BIRRELLIt is a little bit complicated. Under Sub-head D we are only concerned with the expenses of prosecutors, and not with fees of counsel for prosecution or defence. We are only concerned with the Winter Assizes of 1912. The Winter Assizes of 1913 have not yet been made the subject matter of this Vote, which has been budgeted for 1912, and our Estimate was an under Estimate. In consequence of the Assizes having been so much longer, and the witnesses having been so much more numerous, this Estimate has become necessary. The method is as follows: I get the account from the local authorities, and the expenses have to be approved by the Treasury. I may say that the scale is more generous to witnesses in Ireland than in this country. They are paid in the first case by the local authorities, and then the charges are forwarded to the office of the Chief Secretary, and afterwards to the Local Government Board, whose auditor examines them, and has to certify them as being correct. Then we make a refund to the counties. The hon. and learned Member opposite is fully acquainted with these things, and he knows that this is a matter which takes a considerable amount of time. The Assizes dealt with are those of 1912, the accounts for which have gone through this auditing process, and it is because they are much larger than was anticipated that this extra Vote has had to be put down.
§ Mr. MOOREThe right hon. Gentleman has not cleared this matter up. There is no dispute between us if the Chief Secretary will face the facts. The costs of prosecutions in Ireland are defrayed by the county, and they are ultimately refunded in the following year. What the right hon. Gentleman has referred to in the memorandum refers only to the costs payable by the county to witnesses. That is not the only costs. There is the costs in connection with prosecutions conducted by the Crown Solicitor, who is paid quarterly, and, consequently, it comes into this account. The same applies to counsels' fees which are paid by the Crown, and they do not wait a year for their fees. The Crown Solicitor has to pay them immediately. The only items which the right 1859 hon. Gentleman refers to as peculiar to the Assizes of a year back are the items which are refunded relating to the witnesses. The fees of counsel employed by the Crown and the costs come in to the current year, and are, therefore, in this Vote, and, consequently, I am entitled to discuss the expenses of these people who are concerned at the last Winter Assizes of 1913. The Chief Secretary cannot deny that.
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe items which the hon. and learned Member has referred to come in under the General Estimates, and not under this Supplementary Estimate. This Estimate is solely in consequence of the expenses of witnesses attending the Assizes of 1912. The other expenses referred to come under another Sub-head. This Estimate relates purely to the expenses of witnesses occasioned by their attendance at the prolonged Assizes of 1912.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILWe are asking for an additional Vote of £2,250. I do not know what the cost of witnesses may be in Ireland, but it seems to me prodigious if this amount extra is for witnesses that were not expected. I do not know what the amount allowed for witnesses is in Ireland, and perhaps the Chief Secretary will tell me what they are paid. I should think 5s. per day would be a very extravagant amount, and at that price it means 11,000 extra witnesses. I cannot think his information can possibly be right, and it must include something else. There was originally expected to be about 56,000 witnesses, but it turned out that there were 11,000 extra. I am inclined to think that the greater part of the population of Ireland have been engaged in these cases, or it may be that instead of receiving 5s. they have had £5 per day.
§ Mr. BIRRELLThey are paid on a more generous scale than in this country.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI am allowing a good deal, but there must be something beyond witnesses' expenses for 1912.
§ Mr. MOOREMay I point out, with great respect, what the heading of this Estimate is? It says that this is a sum required—
To defray the expenses of criminal prosecutions and other law charges in Ireland, including a Grant in relief of certain expenses payable by Statute out of the local rates.1860 Therefore, the Chief Secretary is ignoring the heading of his own Vote.
The CHAIRMANThat is the heading of the whole Vote and the original Estimate, but we are now only concerned with Item D, which the hon. and learned Member will find in the General Estimate. I think it would have been better if the words of the General Estimate had been set out.
§ Mr. GILLCould the excessive expenses incurred in connection with the recent disturbances in Dublin be discussed on this Vote?
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENHow is it that this large additional sum is required, because these expenses must have been incurred before the original Estimate was made out?
§ Mr. BIRRELLYes, but they were not audited.
§ Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENBut it must have been known what these expenses were likely to be. The right hon. Gentleman says they were incurred in 1912, but I think we ought to have some further explanation.
It being a quarter past eight of the clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.