Sitting of 22 August 1887

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS III. — LAW AND JUSTICE, Votes 2 to 12,14, 15.
PUBLIC BILLS—Third Reading—Post Office Savings Banks and Government Annuities* [344], and passed [Changed to "Savings Banks and Government Annuities."]
Withdrawn — Tithe Rent - Charge* [336]; Technical Instruction* [332]; Marriages Confirmation (Antwerp)* [326]; Intestates Estates* [187]; District Lunatic Asylums (Ireland) Officers' Superannuation* [375].

QUESTIONS.

  ISLANDS OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC— THE NEW HEBRIDES—THE FRENCH COLONISTS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What action Her Majesty's Government has taken with regard to the French Colonists that have been sent out to the New Hebrides since the French troops have been in occupation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): There is nothing in the Agreement between the British and French Governments providing that the subjects of neither Power shall settle in the New Hebrides.

  ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS —RABIES AMONG THE DEER IN WINDSOR PARK—DOGS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the newly issued Regulation,

  1347
  that all dogs taken into Windsor Park are to be muzzled or led, was issued with a view to protect the game, or in consequence of an epidemic amongst the deer; and, if the latter, how many deer have died, or been attacked, with rabies; and, under whose authority, and under what Act of Parliament, the Ranger, or Deputy Ranger, is empowered to prevent the free use of the Park and forest roads to the public and their dogs?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): Owing to the outbreak of rabies among the deer in Richmond Park, resulting in the loss of a large number, it was considered advisable to take steps to guard against any similar outbreak in Windsor Park, and with that view the notice referred to was issued by His Royal Highness the Ranger. No deer have died in Windsor Park of rabies; but it is known that at least 12 deer were worried and killed by dogs there before the notice referred to was issued. In surrendering Windsor Park, &c, Her Majesty retained the right of appointing a Ranger with the requisite staff. The Ranger is appointed by Her Majesty and the Deputy Ranger by the Ranger. They derive their powers by virtue of their appointments, and not under any Act of Parliament or from the Commissioners of Woods. The roads through the Park, like roads in other Royal Parks, are subject to Regulations as to user, which must, of course, be varied as occasion requires.

  WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT) — ENFIELD SMALL ARMS FACTORY.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Secretary of State for War, What arms are principally being manufactured at Enfield at the present time; and, what is the proportion of skilled artificers to unskilled hands employed in the manufacture of each kind of such arms?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): At the end of last week 519 skilled artificers and 579 unskilled workmen were employed in the manufacture of rifles; 287 skilled and 100 unskilled were making swords and bayonets; 70 skilled artificers and 53 unskilled workmen were occupied on machine guns; and 158 skilled artificers and 150 unskilled workmen were at work on various miscellaneous matters.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— FIRING FROM AN EXCURSION TRAIN AT COLERAINE.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the 27th June, a Roman Catholic excursion party from Toome and Randalstown went to Castlerock; whether while the excursion trains were passing through Coleraine Station several shots were fired from the side next the platform, where a large number of people were assembled; whether any attempt was made to make the members of the excursion party amenable; and, whether, in consequence of the repeated firing from trains resulting in serious bodily injury, the Government will institute a special inquiry into the circumstances attending the excursion of the Irish National Foresters?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: I am informed that when the excursion train on its return journey from Castlerock had nearly passed through Coleraine Station, at which it did not stop, about 10 or 12 shots were fixed from it towards the end of the platform. One bullet struck a railway signboard. There was a large number of people on the platform at the time; but, fortunately, no person was injured. The occurrence was thereupon telegraphed to the police of Toome Bridge, which was the train's destination and first stopping place. The sergeant, with, two constables, at once proceeded to the railway station and awaited the arrival of the train; but failed to make anyone amenable, nor were subsequent efforts more successful.

  BRAZIL-EXACTIONS FROM A BRITISH FIRM.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a sum of about £3,000 has been illegally exacted from the firm of Bowman's Heirs (of Dundee and Pernambuco), British merchants, by the Brazilian Customs, under the authority of a mere "aviso," or Circular of the Minister of Finance; whether, as regards £1,100 of this sum, the Circular was made retrospective, and applied to goods imported before its date, execution being levied on buildings belonging to the

  1349
  firm, and public advertisement of their sale being made, notwithstanding the firm's protest that the exaction was illegal; whether the Government of Brazil have admitted the illegality of the exaction, but have let five years pass without granting restitution; and, whether the Government are prepared to take any, and what, steps to obtain restitution of these moneys, and to prevent the recurrence of such, illegal proceedings?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): So far as the Secretary of State is aware the facts as stated in the first and second paragraphs of the Question are substantially correct; and, if so, a great hardship and injustice has undoubtedly been inflicted on Bowman's Heirs. Her Majesty's Government are not aware that the Brazilian Government have admitted the illegality of the exaction. Her Majesty's Minister at Rio has been instructed, if on inquiry it should appear that Bowman's Heirs have exhausted all the legal means open to them to obtain redress, to ask the Brazilian Government for a settlement of their longstanding claim.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT—THE HESSIAN FLY,
  MR. H. GARDNERasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, In how many counties of England, Scotland, and Wales official information has been received of the appearance of the Hessian fly; whether its presence has also been reported in Ireland; what steps, if any, besides issuing warnings to Local Authorities, were taken, with a view of stamping out this agricultural pest in its commencement, by the Government when the Hessian fly's appearance was first reported last year; and, what steps are being taken to meet the now widely-spread danger to corn crops, and to check, if not too late, its further development?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord JOHN MANNERS): Official information of the presence of the Hessian fly has been received from 19 counties in England, and seven in Scotland. No information has been received of its presence in Ireland or Wales. No steps were taken last year
  1350
  beyond issuing warning notices in August, September, and November, as already described, and it is difficult to see what other action could have been taken. During this year Circulars warning farmers of the danger, and giving practical methods of meeting it, have been widely circulated by means of the Local Authorities and the Press. The only other possible action would be to apply to Parliament for powers to compel farmers to plough in or burn stubble with or without seeds, and to burn infested straw, and to pay compensation for the losses so incurred; which action would probably be altogether inoperative, owing to the widespread nature of the attack, and the difficulty of detecting the presence of the insect. Practical farmers are opposed to such a course, and the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society, at their last meeting, were also against it. In Russia, Congresses were convened by the Government, composed of farmers and experts, who discussed the best mode of getting rid of the insect; but neither in Russia nor in America were any compulsory measures adopted. As before stated, a small Commission has been appointed here to inquire into the extent of the attack and the amount of loss caused by it, as far as possible; and when their Report is received it will be immediately laid before Parliament.

  SCOTLAND—THE GREENOCK POLICE— ALLEGED ASSAULT ON A BOY.
  MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAMasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware that, as stated in The Greenock Telegraph of 11th instant, a police constable named Innes, at Prince's Pier, Greenock, on 21st July, struck a boy severely with a cane; whether a citizen named John McGiveran, on remonstrating with the policeman, was assailed by him in insulting and abusive language, assaulted, and placed under arrest; whether it has come to his knowledge that Captain Angus, Superintendent of Police, has refused to give the assaulted parties any redress, or to allow their cases to enter the Police Court, although their statements were substantiated by several respectable witnesses; and, whether he will institute an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The police constable in question did, while clearing away a number of boys from the gangway of a steamer, strike some of them with a cane. He did not do so severely; and the boy who was alleged to have been severely struck had no mark on him when examined on the same day by the Chief Constable. Some angry words passed between John McGiveran and the constable on McGiveran's interfering with him; and the constable arrested him and led him away about 100 yards, but did not take him further. The whole matter was reported by the Chief Constable to the burgh. Procurator Fiscal, who did not consider that there was any ground for a criminal charge; and the Chief Constable thought unnecessary to deal with the matter as one of police discipline any further, as the constable was leaving the force, at any rate, in a few days. I have seen the evidence taken, which is conflicting, and concur that a prosecution is not called for; but if any criminal charge is made, and further information tendered, it shall be fully considered.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—REMOVAL OF THE POLICE STATION FROM CARRIGAHORIG, CO. TIPPERARY.
  MR. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is contemplated to remove the police station from Carrigahorig, County Tipperary, to Portland Bridge; whether, on a former occasion, after the Constabulary were removed from Carrigahorig, a man was fired at, and his life only saved by some coin in his pocket, which stopped the shot; whether "Boycotting" is still active in and around Carrigahorig, one large employer of labour having to send 14 miles before he can get his horses shod; and, whether, in. view of the fact that Carrigaborig is an important station on the highway from Connaught to Munster, while Portland Bridge is entirely out of the way, he will favourably consider the Memorial, presented to His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, against the removal of the police from Carrigahorig?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (who replied) said: Carrigahorig Police Station is to be discontinued, and a new station established instead at Portland. I have no information in regard to the case of firing at the person, beyond a statement by the person that his father was fired at in 1847. It is the case that Boycotting prevails through the Carrigahorig district; and one gentleman, who is a large employer of labour, has to get his horses shod at a place 11 miles distant. The Lord Lieutenant has given careful consideration to the Memorial alluded to. His Excellency has satisfied himself that Portland is a more important position for a police station than Carrigahorig, and that police duties at the latter place can be efficiently performed by the men at Lorrha, which is about 2¼ miles distant, and at the station to be formed at Portland, which will be three miles distant.

  AFRICA (WEST)—THE ROYAL NIGER COMPANY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If, since the Papers regarding the Royal Niger Company are delayed, he can now state what territory is really in possession of that Company; about what population they rule over, and what revenue they have; what number of Europeans they employ in administrative appointments; how they are nominated and their fitness tested; who legislates for the territory; and whether any regular Laws and Courts have been established; and, generally, whether the Company is mainly a territorial power or a Trading Corporation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, at present I can only say that the Papers will be ready before long; and I think that any attempt to answer a Question ranging over so wide a field, and comprising so many details, might lead to misconception.

  INDIA—THE NIZAM'S STATE RAILWAY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, since he had stated it to be known to the Secretary of State that, on the first occasion of a

  1353
  Native Prince coming direct into the London Money Market to obtain money for the Nizams State Railway, at least £138,000 was paid for promotion money, the Secretary of State proposes to take; any steps to put a stop to such, practices, either by providing that the money borrowed for public works and other purposes in Native States shall be borrowed through the Government of India, as was formerly the case, or by warning lenders that they must expect no assistance from the Government of India to realize debts which they have made at their own risk?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): In the case of the Nizam's State Railway the negotiations were conducted between the Nizam's Government and the Company; and the then Secretary of State distinctly disclaimed all responsibility in the matter. In the event of any similar case again occurring, the Secretary of State must reserve his discretion to act as circumstances may require, and cannot lay down any general rules such as those suggested in the Question.
  In reply to a subsequent Question by Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL,
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, that the Secretary of State reserved absolute discretion on his part to deal with any case that might arise according to the circumstances of the case. He was not disposed to enter into a pledge to the hon. Member or to the House that he would fetter himself by the imposition of a general rule.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Does the Secretary of State propose to take any action or not?
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid, that the Secretary of State did not propose to take any action with reference to the Company which purchased the Nizam's State Railway, and which was formed in 1883 under the auspices of the last Government but two.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—ROCHFORD (CO. WESTMEATH) PETTY SESSIONS — NON-ATTENDANCE OF MAGISTRATES.
  MR. TUITEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If two men named Keena and Costello were summoned to
  1354
  appear at the Rochford (County Westmeath) Petty Sessions, on the 15th July last, to answer the complaint of Mr. Rochfort Boyd, J.P., D.L., for injuring an eel weir, his property, and also to answer the complaint of the Kilbeggan Drainage Board for trespass; whether the defendants, with their solicitor, extended; but, as only one magistrate appeared, the cases were postponed until the 17th August; whether, on the 17th August, the defendants again attended, with counsel and solicitor; but, as no magistrate attended, the Petty Sessions clerk declared the Court adjourned; whether, on the latter occasion, even the prosecutor, Mr. Boyd, did not attend; whether the frequent non-attendance of magistrates at not only Rochford, but several other Petty Sessions in Westmeath, has been frequently complained of, and what action will the Government take to ensure the attendance of magistrates at Petty Sessions in the county; and, whether, having regard to the loss sustained by the defendants, Keena and Costello, in bringing counsel from Dublin, a distance of 54 miles, any compensation will be afforded them?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, the clerk of Petty Sessions reported that Keena and Costello, the two men referred to, were summoned to appear at the Rochford Petty Sessions on the 20th July, and not the 15th. Two magistrates attended; but one of them being a Trustee for the drainage district he could not hear the case, and the other magistrate adjourned the cases so that he should have assistance. The defendants raised no objection to the adjournment. They appeared again on the 17th August; but no magistrate attended. Mr. Rochfort-Boyd was not present; but he was represented by his solicitor.
  MR. TUITEsaid, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not answered the last paragraph of the Question.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he did not see that there was any necessity for granting costs for bringing counsel from Dublin. There were excellent legal practitioners in the town.
  MR. TUITE: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether the celebrated Major Traill is in charge of the Mullingar district for a consider-

  1355
  able time, and that he had only attended one Petty Session since he became locum tenens?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was not aware.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE POLICE AT KANTURK.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has seen the reports in the Cork newspapers of 15th instant, of an occurrence which took place at Kanturk on the night of Saturday 13th instant, on which occasion Head Constable Horgan and a party of police endeavoured to enter forcibly the private grounds of the Rev. Father Collins, in spite of his protestations, and, on being prevented from entering by the gate, forcibly entered the premises by climbing over the boundary ditch; whether he has seen in said reports that the Head Constable and a police sergeant drew revolvers on the people assembled; and, whether, in view of all the circumstances, he will order an early inquiry into the conduct of the constables?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: It appears that on the night of the 13th instant the police at Kanturk followed a large crowd of persons which marched to the residence and grounds of the Rev. Mr. Collins, C.C., where it was understood a meeting was to be held. An altercation took place at the gate entrance between the police and Mr. Collins, who refused admission through the gate, but voluntarily gave the police permission to enter over the ditch, which they did. Upon the police entering the field the crowd assumed a very menacing attitude. Several of them were armed with pitchforks, and the officer drew his revolver and held it by his side.
  MR. FLYNNasked, what information had the local Constabulary that there was any intention of holding a meeting on the occasion in question; and, also, where the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had derived his information as to the people being armed with pitchforks?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, with reference to the latter part of the Question, he derived his information from the officer who was in charge of the police, lie had not received notice of the former
  1356
  part of the Question, of which he must ask Notice.

  IRELAND—THE CUSTOMS WAREHOUSE, CORK.
  MR P. M'DONALDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is a fact that, in consequence of the wholesale traders of Cork declining to bond their goods in the Customs Warehouse owing to the lessee being a rival trader, the Crown is put to the expense of maintaining other warehouses while there is more than sufficient accommodation at the Custom House; and, whether complaints to this effect have been made from several quarters to the Board of Customs; and, if so, what resolution was come to on the question?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: Since 1882 there has been no increase in the number of the warehouses at Cork. Warehousing accommodation at Cork is in excess of the requirements; but the Board of Customs have not given any new bonds in consequence of the wholesale traders declining to bond with the lessee of the Crown Warehouse. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Crown has been put to expense in consequence of Mr. Foley's action as a trader. Complaints have reached the Customs as to the warehousing charges made by Mr. Foley; but the Board does not interfere with the tariffs adopted by the warehouse keepers. As opportunities offer, the warehousing accommodation at Cork will be reduced.
  DR. TANNERobserved, that the hon. Gentleman said there had been no increase in the warehouse accommodation since 1882; but he (Dr. Tanner) was at the opening of a new warehouse in Nile Street in 1885.
  MR. P. M'DONALDasked if the complaint would receive consideration?
  [No reply.]

  WALES—THE MERIONETH POLICE— DISMISSAL OF POLICE CONSTABLE GRIFFITH.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the dismissal of Police Constable Griffith from the

  1357
  Merionethshire Police, and to the refusal of the Chief Constable to grant him any testimonial of character; whether one of the causes alleged for his dismissal is that he sympathized with the tithe movement; whether he has served in the police force for over four years with credit; and, whether he will make inquiries as to whether this policeman has received fair treatment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have obtained a Report from the Chief Constable of the county, who informs me that this constable was not dismissed for sympathizing with the tithe movement, but for a gross neglect of duty. He had served in the police for a little over four years, and had borne a fair character. The Chief Constable has, by Statute, the power to dismiss him without notice. In this case he gave the constable a month's notice, and has not refused to give him a good general character, although he has declined to give him such a character as would enable him to enter another police force.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE— CONSTABLE CURRY.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN(for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE) (Dublin Co., S.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Constable Curry, of the F Division of the Metropolitan Police, employed at Kingstown, had his costs paid out of the Imperial Exchequer in the case against him by Mary Anne Smyth, at the Quarter Sessions held at Kingstown by the Recorder on the 15th of April last; and, if so, by what authority; and, if any certificate was given to Constable Curry, exonerating him from any blame in the matter of his conduct towards Miss Smyth; and, if so, by whom?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Constable Curry was paid out of public funds the costs incurred by him in defending the case against him by Mary Anne Smyth at Kingstown. The payment was sanctioned by the then Attorney General, on the grounds that the constable had acted reasonably and to the best of his judgment in the fair discharge of his duty as a police officer. A certificate exonerating him from any blame in the matter of his conduct to-
  1358
  wards Miss Smyth was given by the Hon. the Recorder of Dublin upon the hearing of the case.

  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE— NUMBERS AND RELIGION OF RECRUITS.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN(for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE) (Dublin Co., S.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many men have joined the Dublin Metropolitan Police during the last four years; and, how many are Catholics, and how many Protestants?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Three hundred and twenty-one men have joined the Dublin Metropolitan Police during the four years ending July 31 last. Of these, 239 are Roman Catholics, and 82 are Protestants.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUM, DUNDRUM —THE MARRIED ATTENDANTS.
  MR. D.SULLIVAN(for Sir THOMAS ESMONDE) (Dublin Co., S.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If all the married attendants in Dundrum Criminal Asylum are given lodging allowance; and, if not, why not?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said, six out of 10 married attendants were in receipt of lodging allowances. At the end of last year the Irish Executive had under consideration the question of extending their allowances to the other men; but the Treasury decided that as the Estimates were then being closed no decision could then be arrived at. The matter, however, had not been, lost sight of.

  BURMAH—THE BOMBAY-BURMAH TRADING CORPORATION.
  MR. CAREWasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is aware that King Theebaw had put and end to all leases of the Bombay-Burmah Trading Corporation, on the ground of unfair dealing on the part of the Corporation; and, whether the Government have made, or intend making, any inquiry into these

  1359
  charges before recognizing in any form their claims?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): The circumstances under which King Theebaw cancelled the leases of the Bombay-Burmah Trading Corporation are perfectly well known to the Secretary of State; and I may remind the House that the injustice of the King in this matter was one of the causes which led to the conquest of Upper Burmah.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— HOWTH HARBOUR.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will state or lay upon the Table a Return of the sources and amount of the revenue of Howth Harbour for each year since 1867; and, whether he will also state or lay upon the Table an Account of the expenditure of that revenue, distinguishing the different heads of expenditure, and specifying the exact nature of the works, if any, on which money has been spent in the period mentioned?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): An Account of the receipts and expenditure of Howth Harbour is being prepared, and I shall have no objection to the hon. Member seeing it when ready; but I do not think that it need be presented to the House.

  PUBLIC OFFICES—THE NEW ADMIRALTY AND WAR OFFICE—GRANT TO MESSRS, LEEMING'S, THE ARCHITECTS.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will cause the Correspondence between the Office of Works and Messrs. Leeming's, relative to the proposed new Admiralty Buildings, to be laid upon the Table of the House before the Supplementary Estimate for the grant of money to Messrs. Leeming's is brought before the House?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET), in reply, said, he must refer the hon. Member to the answer he had given some time ago to a somewhat similar Question by the right hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). He saw no reason
  1360
  for laying the Correspondence on the Table; but he would be very glad to show all the letters to the hon. Member if he wished.

  INLAND REVENUE—THE INCOME TAX FROM ANNUITIES.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will state the amount of Income Tax derived from the capital of the several classes of Annuities mentioned by him, also the amount of Income Tax derived from the interest forming part of the several classes of the Annuities, showing the total from both sources?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): No distinction is observed between capital and interest in the assessment of Income Tax on Life and Terms of Years Annuities held by the public; as explained in the answer to the hon. Member's former Question, the Income Tax paid in respect of a portion of the Chancery Annuity only represents the tax upon the dividends of Stock standing in the names of the suitors.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I beg to say I am not satisfied with the answer.

  WAR OFFICE—ROYAL HORSE ARTILLERY—GUNNER S. HOGBEN.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN(for Sir THOMAS ESMONDS) (Dublin Co., S.) asked the Secretary of State for War, If Gunner S. Hogben, of I Battery, A Brigade, Royal Horse Artillery, stationed at Portobello Barracks, Dublin, who was lately decreed for the amount due by him to a local trader, has paid the amount of the decree; and, if not, whether the Government will either compel him to pay the amount due, or indemnify his creditors?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I must decline, Sir, to enter into this case. By Section 144 of the Army Act the law deliberately exempts a soldier from the pressure for the payment of his debts which can be applied to a civilian. Tradesmen are well aware of this provision; and if, in the face of it, they allow soldiers credit they must do so at their own risk.

  AFRICA—THE WEST AFRICAN SETTLEMENTS—ATTACKS BY SLAVE TRADERS.
  SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has received from Sir Samuel Rowe, Governor of the West African Settlements, any complaints from the Chiefs of Jarra and Fogni of cruel and unprovoked attacks being made upon them by large bands of slave-trading marauders; whether these Chiefs have offered to place their territories under British control; and, whether Sir Samuel Rowe has made any Report on the subject, or advised Her Majesty's Government as to the best means of restoring order and protecting legitimate commerce in the Gambia?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I have received from Sir Samuel Rowe complaints from the Chiefs of Jarra and Fogni of the kind indicated in the Question. These Chiefs have offered to place their territories under British protection. I received a few days ago a Report from Sir Samuel Rowe upon this subject. I can assure the hon. Baronet that Her Majesty's Government will give most careful consideration to that Report, and as to the means of restoring order and legitimate commerce in the Gambia. They are quite alive to the importance of the subject; but it is, as the hon. Baronet knows, beset with great difficulties.

  TRINIDAD—THE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT.
  MR. BADEN-POWELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Chief Justice of Trinidad happens to be, for the time, the only one of the three Judges of the High Court present in Trinidad; whether the Chief Justice gives daily audience, in his Chambers, to from 20 to 40 persons coming to him for advice in regard to grievances and difficulties upon which he may ultimately have to adjudicate in Court; whether a majority of the persons seeking audience are intending litigants; whether he is aware of dissatisfaction being manifested in Trinidad at this action of the Chief Justice; and, whether such action is customary, or has the approval of the Secretary of State?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): Yes; but I may add that it is now vacation time, and that there are at present only two Judges of the High Court, although the appointment of a third Judge has been decided upon, and will shortly be made. I am informed that some statements to this effect have appeared in a Trinidad newspaper; but I have no official information on the subject. I am not aware of such action on the part of the Chief Justice, or of dissatisfaction having been manifested; but I will cause inquiry to be made. Such action on the part of a Judge is not customary, and would not have the approval of the Secretary of State.

  EGYPT—THE DEPOSITION OF THE EX-KHEDIVE ISMAIL.
  DR. CLARKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any official Correspondence exists which shows that the deposition of the Ex-Khedive Ismail emanated from a Continental Power; and, whether he will lay any Correspondence not already published upon the Table, in accordance with the usage that no Correspondence can be referred to by a Minister without laying the Papers upon the Table of the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): In my observations the other evening on the deposition of the Ex-Khedive Ismail, I was speaking from my recollection of what I thought was a historical fact. I did not quote from, nor had I read, any official Papers on the subject which have not been laid upon the Table of this House.
  In further reply to Dr. CLARK,
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, it would be found, if the hon. Member would inquire, that the German Government took a very strong attitude and issued a very significant protest, as follows:—
  "That the Imperial Government looks upon the Decree of the 22nd of April, by which the Egyptian Government, at its own will, regulates the matters relating to the Debt, thereby abolishing existing and recognized rights, as an open and direct violation of the International engagements contracted at the institution of the judicial reform; that it must declare the Decree to be devoid of any legally binding effect in regard to the competency of the mixed Courts of Justice and the rights of the subjects of the Empire, and must hold the Viceroy responsible

  1363
  for all consequences of his unlawful proceedings."
  This communication was communicated to all the Powers. The Viceroy frequently broke his solemn engagements without any serious consequences; but the first occasion on which Germany protested against such a breach was soon followed by his deposition, though he would not say whether it was post hoc or propter hoc. It was Germany which took the action which culminated in the deposition of the Viceroy.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—THE SENTENCE ON MIRIAM JONES, FOR ATTEMPTED CHILD MURDER.
  MR. W. ABRAHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received a Petition respecting the sentence of eight years' penal servitude passed at the late Glamorganshire Assizes upon Miriam Jones, barely 17 years old, for the attempted murder of her child; and, if so, whether he will recommend Her Majesty to mitigate the severity of such sentence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): No Petition has yet been presented to me in this case. In the meantime, I am making injuiries.

  SCOTLAND—THE EXPEDITION TO TIREE—POLICE CONSTABLE D. MACPHERSON.
  DR. CLARKasked the Lord Advocate, Whether Police Constable D. Macpherson, of Tobermory, took part in the expedition to the Island of Tiree, of which Island the Duke of Argyll is landlord; whether this constable suffered in health from the exposure connected with the expedition; whether, in consequence of impaired health, this constable has been dismissed from the Police Force by the Police Committee; whether the Duke of Argyll is one of the ex officio members of the Police Committee; and, whether the Secretary for Scotland in any future expeditions will arrange that better accommodation is provided for the police?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): The constable Macpherson did go to Tiree, but on his arrival was attacked with bronchitis, and
  1364
  was relieved from all but slight duty. He was subject to throat attacks when he joined the force, in which he has only served two years, during the last 10 months of which he did very little duty. I understand that, when formerly in the Glasgow Police, he was occasionally off duty from the same cause. He received full pay until his discharge, and a gratuity of £5 when discharged. None of the police who were in ordinary health suffered in any way from their stay in Tiree, and the arrangements made were all that could be done in the circumstances.

  THE SALTERS' COMPANY—SALE OF THEIR IRISH ESTATES.
  MR. CHANCE(for Mr. T. M. HEALY) (Longford, N.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Has his attention been drawn to the complaint that the Salters' Company of London, having sold for £250,000 their Irish estates in Derry, refuse to continue the grants which under their Charter they made to the various churches and endowments of the county; has the money yet been paid over to them; if not, will the Treasury refuse to sanction the transaction until some attempt is made to satisfy the conditions of the Charter; and, are any other London Companies in treaty with the Land Purchase Commissioners for the transfer of their property; and, if so, will any steps be taken to compel the allocation of some portion of the purchase moneys before the transfer is sanctioned to endowments and charities which these Companies under Charter have hitherto supported?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: my attention has only been called to the matter referred to in the Question by the Question itself. So far as I am aware, the grants mentioned are voluntary contributions. I have not seen the Charter of the Salters' Company; if it imposes any legal obligation to make grants to churches or endowments it should be enforced by legal proceedings. The Land Commissioners state that the purchase money in all completed sales on the Salters' Company's estate has been paid. The Treasury cannot refuse its sanction where the transaction between vendor

  1365
  and purchaser comes within the Act, and is approved of by the Land Commission. Other Companies are also carrying out sales through the Land Commission. The Government have no power to interfere so as to make voluntary donations compulsory. The matter is one for representation and action on the part of the charities affected, and not for Government interference.
  MR. CHANCE: I wish to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether he will take steps to discover if there if not a legal liability on the part of these Companies to continue the grants; and, if so, whether the Crown will take steps to have that legal liability enforced?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had failed to discover that there was any such, liability on the part of the Companies.
  MR. SEXTON: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman have any objection to arrange that the purchase money shall be withheld until Parliament has ascertained whether the original grants impose the spending of a certain amount of money?
  COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the Government had no power to act in the manner suggested by the hon. Member.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS—THE MILLSTREET UNION.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is correct that 133 cottages have been applied for by the Millstreet Union, under the Labourers Acts, Ireland, and that 108 have been authorized by the Local Government Board, and that as yet there are neither any cottages erected or in course of construction; what is the cause of the delay; is it a fact that £56 6s. has been expended in Medical Reports upon these prospected cottages, while £42 5s. 6d. has only been spent in the Macroom Union, where 420 cottages are applied for, and 315 sanctioned by the Local Government Board; Why the disparity in this item; and, why has the Local Government Board paid £39 7s. in the Millstreet Union, and only £43 17 s. 6d. in the Macroom Union, for the above-mentioned unequal results?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (who replied) said: The figures given in this Question are correct. The delay in erecting cottages in the Millstreet Union appears to have arisen from an informality in the notices furnished by the Guardians on the owners and occupiers of the lands to be compulsorily taken. The Clerk of the Union reports that the 108 cottages are now in course of erection. The disparity in the medical expenses arises from the fact that the medical officers of Millstreet Union were paid by the Guardians at the rate of 7s. 6d. for each cottage, while in Macroom Union the remuneration was at the rate of 2s. 6d. a house. The comparatively slight difference between the law costs in the two cases, having regard to the number of cottages, is due to the fact that in the Macroom Union there were only two schemes to be dealt with; whereas in the Millstreet case there were 11 such schemes.

  METROPOLITAN PRISONS—CLERKENWELL AND COLDBATH FIELDS— SALE OF SITES.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether a portion of the site of Coldbath Fields Prison has been sold to the Post Office; and, if so, what is the area of the land sold, and the price obtained; whether the site of the Clerkenwell House of Detention, and a portion of the site of Coldbath Fields Prison, have been sold to the London School Board; and, if so, what is the area of the land sold, and the price obtained; and, if not, whether negotiations are in progress; what portion of the sites of the two Prisons still remains undisposed of, and to what purpose it is proposed to apply it; and, whether, having regard to the requirements of the crowded neighbourhoods of the Prisons, he can state why the aggregate area of the sites have not been utilized for the erection of dwellings for the labouring classes, and for the creation of open spaces?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The Treasury have arranged that the Post Office shall have at least five acres of the Coldbath Fields site. The Post Office being a Government Department no question of price arises. No portion of the Coldbath Fields site has been sold

  1367
  to the London School Board. The Clerkenwell site has not yet been sold to the London School Board; but negotiations are in progress. There are about four acres of the Coldbath Fields undisposed of, some portion of which may be wanted by the London School Board. Endeavours have been made, by negotiation with the Metropolitan Board of Works and private persons, to utilize the sites for the erection of low-rented artizans' dwellings, but without success. The appropriation of part of the site to the Post Office was for the purpose of satisfying a public want. The sale to the School Board, if it is carried out, will avoid the removal of existing artizans' dwellings and the eviction of the occupiers, which would take place if the School Board purchased another site in Clerkenwell. I may add that the Clerkenwell Vestry were of opinion that additional artizans' dwellings were unnecessary in this locality.

  THE TITHE COMMISSION—WELSH SPEAKING WITNESSES.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that with the exception of the officers of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the two Chief Constables, and the Church of England clergymen, the great majority of the persons who appeared before the Tithe Commission gave their evidence in the Welsh language; and whether, in view of the great interest taken in the Report of the Commissioner by the Welsh people, he will direct Professor Rhys, Secretary to the Commissioner, to prepare a Welsh translation of the Report?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am not aware how many of the witnesses before the Tithe Commission gave their evidence in Welsh. I do not propose to have an official translation of the Report into Welsh made by Professor Rhys. I have no doubt that private effort will supply any demand there may be for a Welsh translation.
  SIR EDWARD J. REEDappealed to the Home Secretary to reconsider the matter. There were a large number of persons who are awaiting the Report with extreme interest, and many of them would be unable to read it
  1368
  unless it were produced in Welsh. No voluntary translation would be read with the same confidence as would one that was known to be authorized.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he would willingly consider the matter further. It would be felt that it was not easy for the Government to undertake to translate an official document into Welsh or Gaelic; and he should have thought that private efforts would have abundantly satisfied any demand for a translation. He was sorry to hear that there were so many people in Wales who did not read English.

  STATE OF IRELAND—"BOYCOTTING AND POLICE PROTECTION (IRELAND)."
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Parliamentary Paper, "Boycotting and Police Protection (Ireland)," circulated on Saturday last, What state of facts is alleged by the Irish Government in regard to the cases of "Persons wholly Boycotted" and "Persons partly Boycotted," respectively; under what circumstances persons enumerated in the Return receive "special constant police protection;" how their cases are distinguished from those of persons "protected by patrols;" and, what is the operation of this latter form of protection; and, whether the Return is founded upon Reports and representations by the police?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: Persons are described as "wholly Boycotted" when no one in their neighbourhood will work for them, supply them with goods, or have any intercourse with them; as. "partially Boycotted" when, although put to serious inconvenience, they are not altogether unable to buy necessaries, or to exchange the civilities of life with their neighbours. Persons described as receiving "special constant police protection" are those whose lives are in such danger that they have to be protected by the presence of the police at all times. Persons "protected by patrols" are those whose lives are not considered to be in danger, but whose person or property is liable to outrage. The form the latter takes is the presence of the police at

  1369
  different times throughout the 24 hours at the place where the protection is needed. The Return is founded upon Reports made by the local Constabulary Authorities.
  MR. SEXTON: I would like to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, if the 768 persons mentioned in the first Return as being wholly or partly Boycotted are included in the 1,000 persons mentioned in the second Return as having casual police protection?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put the Question down.
  MR. SEXTON: Surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can tell the House. The first Return says 169 persons are wholly Boycotted and 609 partly; and I want him to say if they are the same persons who receive special or casual protection in the second Return?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I have not got the Return before me; but if the hon. Gentleman will put the Question down I will ascertain.
  MR. SEXTON: I will repeat the Question to-morrow.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—SECTION 6— PROCLAMATION OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE.
  MR. E. ROBERTSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the provisions of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act (section 6, sub-section 3), he will lay before the House the evidence which has satisfied the Lord Lieutenant that the National League—
  "Promotes and incites to acts of violence and intimidation, and interferes with the administration of the law,"
  or such information as will enable the House to decide, in terms of the Statute, whether the Proclamation should continue in force or not?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN)(who replied) said: The complete evidence cannot be laid before the House in the form of a Return; but information bearing on the subject can be obtained from the Returns relating to Boycotting and to agrarian crime which are already in possession of the House.

  BOARD OF CUSTOMS—"EXTRA MESSENGERS."
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there are certain officials, styled "extra messengers," employed by the Board of Customs at a remuneration of 3s. per diem when on duty; whether these officers receive an additional 6d. per diem after five years of continuous service; whether their pay is deducted when they are not on duty from any cause whatsoever; whether some of these officers, with service ranging from 10 to 29 years, sent a Memorial to the Board of Customs on the 6th June asking that their pay might not be deducted for the holiday which they would be compelled to take on the occasion of the Queen's Jubilee Celebration; whether their pay was actually deducted on account of the public holiday on that occasion; whether another Petition, asking for a reply to the former Memorial, was sent to the Board of Customs on the 11th August; whether a reply will be sent to either of these Memorials; and whether, in future, the extra messengers of Customs will receive pay for the Queen's Birthday, Christmas Day, Good Friday, and the four Bank Holidays?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The extra messengers referred to are "glutmen," usually called extra men, and they are paid 3s. a-day when employed. An additional 6d. a-day is not now paid except in the cases of certain men who were originally so employed under conditions which do not now apply to extra men in general. Glutmen are only paid when employed. The extra men in London sent into the Board of Customs on the 6th of June last a Memorial requesting that they might be granted their usual pay as if they were on duty for Tuesday, the 21st of June—which was observed as a Bank Holiday on the occasion of Her Majesty's Jubilee Celebration—although not employed on that day. As these men were not employed on this public holiday, they were, in accordance with the terms of their engagement, not paid for that day, and the Treasury has refused to alter that decision. A second Memorial was sent in to the Board of Customs on the 11th of August asking for a reply, which I will ask the Commissioners to

  1371
  send. With regard to the last Question, I have only to say that these extra men will be paid, as at present, for the days on which they are employed.

  LAW AND POLICE—ARREST OF A FRENCH LADY (MDLLE. DROUN) AT COWES.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is now in a position, having ascertained the facts relating to the recent arrest of Mdlle. Drouin, in the Isle of Wight, to state what apology or compensation he proposes to make to her for the grave inconvenience and annoyance she has suffered?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have suggested to the Chief Constable in Hants, who effected the arrest, that he should offer Mdlle. Drouin a full apology; and I will consider, with the Treasury, whether the circumstances require that she should be offered an additional solatium in consideration of the inconvenience and annoyance she has suffered. The hon. Member is aware that this matter gives rise to an international question. Mdlle. Drouin has been ascertained to be a lady of perfect respectability and unimpeachable character, and I greatly regret the annoyance to which she has been subjected. At the same time, the hon. Member will understand that the Hampshire police had no alternative upon the information given them than to take Mdlle. Drouin before the magistrate.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—SALARIES TO THE CHAPLAINS AND SURGEONS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government intend to take any steps to carry out the recommendation of the Irish Executive with reference to an increase of salaries to the chaplains and surgeons of Irish prisons?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given on a previous occasion to a similar Question on the 26th of July, which was to the effect that a final decision could not be come to before the Estimates were prepared.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT—THE TELEGRAM OF CAPTAIN PLUNKETT.
  MR. HOOPERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether from any Department or agent of the Government an offer has been made of a reward of £50, or any other sum, for information as to the divulging to a Cork newspaper of the telegram of Captain Plunkett, of the 9th March last, to the Inspector of Constabulary at Youghal; and, if so, is the offer still in existence, or has it been withdrawn?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Similar Questions have already been answered in this House, and I can only repeat that I have no information of the offer of any such reward.
  MR. HOOPER: With all the sources of Government information at his command, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to deny that such a reward was offered?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no information on the matter.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—THE NORTH HUNTS ELECTION—THE PARISH CONSTABLE OF EARITH.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question of which I have given him private Notice —namely, Whether at a Liberal meeting at Earth, in North Hunts, the Liberal candidate was brutally interrupted by the parish constable, who loudly announced his intention of preventing the candidate from being heard, and who effected his object by the persistent use of ail enormous rattle throughout the whole duration of his speech? I wish to know whether this suppression of the right of free speech by a public functionary meets with the approval of the Home Secretary; and, whether it is merely a development of the recently announced policy of the Government with respect to the political organizations of their opponents; or whether he will give immediate instructions to prevent this apparently gross abuse of his official position by a parish constable?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I know nothing of the facts stated in the Ques-

  1373
  tion, which has only just been put into my hands. The parish constable of; Earth is not in any way dependent upon Her Majesty's Government, nor does he receive any orders from Her Majesty's Government.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—PROCLAMATION OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is any foundation for the report in the newspapers that the debate on the Proclamation of the National League will take place on Monday next instead of Thursday next?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): No, Sir.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland, whether the Dublin police acted yesterday on instructions from the Government in tearing down placards announcing a public meeting convened by the Lord Mayor of Dublin to express an opinion on the Proclamation of the National League by the Government; and, if so, what were the grounds for the instructions?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN): The Irish Office has as yet received no information of the tearing down of any placards.
  MR. SEXTON: I will ask the Question to-morrow.

  ULSTER CANAL AND TYRONE NAVIGATION BILL.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the interest taken in Belfast and the North of Ireland generally in the Ulster Canal and Tyrone Navigation Bill, facilities would be given for the passing of the Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, he hoped that the Bill would be passed in the course of the Session.

  COAL MINES, &c. REGULATION BILL.
  In reply to Mr. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck),
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, this Bill would not be proceeded with to-night. He had undertaken to give Notice when the Bill would
  1374
  be taken, and when taken it would be at an early hour in the evening. The Bill would be reprinted.

  CRIMINAL LAW—THE SOUTHAMPTON MURDERER.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the postponement for a week of the execution of the man Early at Winchester for the murder of his sweetheart at Southampton, Whether this postponement was in consequence of a member of the Royal Family having announced her intention of coming to Winchester in order to unveil a statue of Her Majesty?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The sentence of death on the convict Early has been commuted to penal servitude for life.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (1.) £88,354, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions, Sheriffs' Expenses, &c.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, who is in charge of this Vote, for some information in respect of compensations for which there is a sum of £800 included in the Estimate. I want to know whether these compensations have any bearing on the question of superannuation allowances?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): No; they are compensations for abolition of office brought about by certain Acts of Parliament.
    MR. CONYBEARE: The Committee are clearly to understand that they are not asked in this Vote for anything that ought to come under the head of superannuation allowance.
    MR. JACKSON: Certainly. This item has no connection whatever with superannuation allowances.
    DR. TANNER: I want to ask how it comes to pass that the extradition expenses are always the same figure, and that there is never any

    1375
    decrease in them? They are £400 this year, and they were £400 last year. Is that to be the necessary sequence in all times and under all circumstances?
    MR. JACKSON: It is true that the sum in the Estimates this year is the same as that taken last year; but it does not follow that the expenditure was the same in the two years. Estimates of this kind must be more or less a matter of gu6ss. In 1883–4 the Estimate was £480, and the amount expended £551. In 1884–5 the Estimate was £600, and the expenditure £227. In 1885–6 the Estimate was £600 and the expenditure £201. The Estimate, therefore, has been reduced from £600 in 1884–5 to the amount now asked for—namely, £400, and any part of the sum which is not expended will be returned to the Exchequer.
    DR. TANNER: I put it to the common sense of hon. Members why, if the expenditure is greater or less than the sum actually put down in the Estimates, a statement to that effect should not appear on the Paper? In relation to the national expenditure, when the amount spent has been a good deal less than the Estimate, we ought to rely upon a proportionate reduction being made in the Estimates for the following year. It appears that although three or four years ago the expenditure was greater than the sum actually put down on the Paper it has been a diminishing expenditure ever since. I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to endeavour, as far as possible, to avoid any appearance of having the accounts cooked in this sort of way. I think that they ought always to be put before Parliament in a reasonable and straightforward manner, and it is only right that the Committee should know what the actual expenditure has been.
    MR. JACKSON: It is impossible, accurately to forecast the expenditure under such an item as this. What I said was that the expenditure two years ago was only £200, although the amount taken in the Estimate was £600, and with a view of bringing the grant nearer to the actual expenditure the sum has this year been reduced to the sum of £400.
    ME. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: As I see the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in his place, I wish to put a question to him in
    1376
    reference to an item in this Vote in regard to the position of clerks to the magistrates in rural districts. I see an item in the Vote of £135,000 in connection with the administration of justice; and I wish to ask him whether he has yet taken any steps to prevent the scandal which now obtains, owing to the fact that the clerks find their duties in conflict with their interests in the matter of the committal of prisoners?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): The hon. Member has gone somewhat too far in describing this state of affairs as a "scandal." I have had my attention called to the fact, and I agree that it is undesirable that persons in the position the hon. Member refers to should make a profit out of the prosecution of prisoners. But the hon. Member is probably aware that these matters are controlled by Statute, and that a Bill would have to be introduced to deal with the matter. Of course, it is not possible to introduce a measure of that kind this Session; but I will undertake that the matter shall not be lost sight of.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: If the present Government remain in Office next Session, will the hon. and learned Gentleman introduce such a Bill?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I certainly hope that something may be done in the matter. If the matter rests with me next Session, I shall certainly advise the Government to take some action in regard to it.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: This item of £135,000 in connection with the administration of justice is by far the larger portion of the Vote. I find that a small portion of the Vote is accounted for under separate heads and items; but there are no items which account for this enormous expenditure of £135,000. I will, therefore, ask the Secretary to the Treasury where we are to find the items accounted for?
    MR. JACKSON: These sums are repayments to Local Authorities of the cost of criminal prosecutions. The scale of allowances is fixed by the Secretary of State, under the authority of an Act of Parliament. It is impossible to say beforehand what the actual amount will be, as it depends upon the amount of crime.
    Vote agreed to.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £250,738, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for such of the Salaries and Expanses of the Supreme Court of Judicature as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Hon. Members will be aware that a Committee was appointed by Lord Selborne to inquire into the re-organization of the central office and the remuneration of the officers there. That Committee has rendered very useful service, and has presented a very strong Report. I do not propose to quote extensively from the Report; but I will mention only those points on which the Committee were unanimous. They were, first of all, that a thorough re-organization of the central office is required; secondly, that structural changes in the Royal Courts of Justice, which do not appear to present any difficulty, are required for this purpose; thirdly, that the number of Masters—now 18—as provided by the Act of 1879 is excessive; fourthly, that certain duties now performed by the Masters may be performed by other officers; fifthly, that the number of clerks of the higher grade may, on re-organization, be materially reduced; and, sixthly, that all the officers shall be in attendance throughout the office hours, and that some effective supervision shall be devised in order to secure their attendance. Those are the points on which the Committee were absolutely unanimous. They are all important points, and the recommendations of the Committee were very strong. We are all agreed upon the subject of this Vote, and if these proposals had been carried out the Vote would not be what it now is, but might be very materially reduced. The Report was presented in June last year. The Estimates now before the House were not prepared for several months after that, and the Government had plenty of time to make further arrangements, the Report of the Committee having gone into matters of such detail that there would have been no difficulty whatever in carrying out a large portion of their recommendations. I have looked through the Votes in vain for any trace of anything like a
    1378
    real and effective attempt, on the part of the Treasury, to carry out the recommendations I have mentioned. I cannot see that either in the Vote itself, taken as a whole, or in any part of it, that there is anything like the re-organization which, after such a Report as this, we might reasonably have expected. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to tell us that some changes are in contemplation, and actually in hand, which may lead to a very material reduction in the Vote in the near future. I think we are bound to assume that, after the interval which has now taken place, there should be some effort to carry out the important recommendations of so authoritative a Committee, and I shall be glad to hear that not only have the Treasury taken the matter in hand, but that steps are being actually taken in regard to it.
    MR. PICTON: There is another point in connection with this Vote to which I wish to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury before the Vote is passed. It is a subject upon which I think a little explanation ought to be given. On page 211 there is an item for the office of the Commissioners of Lunacy, and it will be seen that there is a first-class clerk, but no secretary. It would never be imagined, from the mode in which the item is entered in the Votes, that the duties of first-class clerk are being discharged by a gentleman who has been also discharging the responsible duties of secretary for about 11 years past. At that time there was an Act passed, I believe, mainly through, the influence of Lord Cairns, which remodelled the office and suppressed the secretary. It would seem at first sight rather singular that the secretary should have been a mere supernumerary holding a sinecure office; but I believe that I can fully account for what may seem to be a paradox. I believe it was thought that the work was not satisfactorily carried on, and as a temporary arrangement the duties of secretary were transferred to a gentleman who is entered here as a first-class clerk, and from that day to this he has been discharging the duties of secretary. Those duties involve a very considerable amount of responsibility. There are many delicate functions to discharge in connection with the patients and their

    1379
    relatives, and a large amount of business of a responsible character is necessarily thrown upon this gentleman, because the Visitors are continually on circuit and occupied with other duties. This first-class clerk has to keep up a daily correspondence with the Visitors while they are on circuit. He has also to correspond with the relatives of the patients, the medical officers, the solicitors, and, when the patients are capable of doing so, with the patients themselves. Then, again, he has to keep in constant communication with the Masters of Lunacy as to the state of the inmates and their manangement, and he has also to communicate with the Lords Justices as to the various items of the business which necessarily comes under their supervision. He has, of course, to prepare the business of the Board, to take the minutes, and to clear the minute book. Then, in addition to all this, he has to superintend the other clerks in the performance of their duties. Now, I do not think that anyone who knows the circumstances of the case will be prepared to say that this gentleman has not always discharged his duties with complete satisfaction to all who have been brought into communication with him in the matter. Therefore, I cannot but think it is a somewhat hard case that he should be still regarded as only a first-class clerk, and that he should only have the salary of a first-class clerk, not oven being treated as a chief clerk. I do not see why the office should not have its secretary as well as other offices of a similar kind. This gentleman has substantially and practically discharged the duties of secretary for 11 years to the complete satisfaction of everybody, and surely he is suitable for a better position than that which he holds. It will be stated that the Government are anxious to secure economy in the administration of the public funds; but we ought to be equally anxious that this economy should not be effected at the expense of a faithful public servant, who, for a long series of years, has served the country well. The gentleman of whom I speak has been 41 years in the office, and his capabilities are well known. He is trusted to the extent I have described, and no fault has ever been found with him for the way in which he has performed his duties. I therefore wish to have some
    1380
    expression of opinion from the Government upon the subject; and I should like to ask whether, when the Lunacy Bill is being pushed forward, something may not be introduced into it to modify, in some respect, the organization of this office, and to give duo consideration to the valuable services of this gentleman?
    MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to ask a question in reference to certain offices to which a large salary is attached. I see, on page 205, that there is a Secretary of Presentations, who. I notice, receives not only a salary of £400 as secretary, but various other emoluments of £50, and so on, for other services. In addition to that there is a note stating that the present Secretary of Presentations acts as clerk in the office of the Clerk of Parliaments. I should like some information as to what the duties are which are performed by the Secretary of Presentations, who is also a clerk in the office of the Clerk of Parliaments. One would imagine that the duties of one department would be quite sufficient, and I should like to know whether this gentleman is overpaid by the various salaries he receives? Then there is also a Messenger of the Great Seal, to which it does not appear that a large salary is attached, seeing that it is simply £10; and there is a train-bearer to the Lord Chancellor. As we have a train-bearer to Mr. Speaker, I presume that the Lord Chancellor is equally entitled to a train-bearer, although I am bound to say that I consider a train-bearer a very useless piece of furniture. I have no objection either to Mr. Speaker or the Lord Chancellor having a train-bearer; but I want to know whether these officers have more to do than train-bearing? On the next page—page 206—there is a note which refers to the personal following of the Vice Chancellors. I was certainly under the impression that the last of the Vice Chancellors was Vice Chancellor Bacon, and that he has been dead for some time. Then, again, there is an item in the Vote for redundant clerks. That is a matter which, I think, requires explanation; at any rate, it is anything but clear to ray mind. If the clerks are redundant, I certainly do not see why we should have to pay for them. I want to know in what sense these clerks are redundant? A similar item occurs several times in the course of the Estimates,

    1381
    and I think it requires a little explanation. On page 212 I see there is an item for compensation to the senior Registrar of the Probate Court, and three other Registrars connected with the Court. Are these compensation allowances to be paid out of the superannuation fund, and, in the case of the Chief Registrar, is this compensation allowance made in addition to the salary of £1,600 he receives for other services? In this ease the compensation allowance amounts to a very large sum, and I fail to see why we should give compensation allowances at all to officers who are capable of useful employment in the Public Service, and whose offices have been taken from them without the offices themselves being abolished. I do not see why gentlemen placed in such circumstances should be entitled to make a profit out of them. If the Government take existing offices from them owing to the abolition of such offices, and grant them such large compensation allowances, is there any necessity for providing them with such large salaries in addition? Surely there should be no need of compensation when all that is done is to take away sinecure offices for the purpose of promoting the persons who hold them to new offices where they get an increased salary. If that is the principle, I desire to know whether in this case we are to understand these large compensation allowances are in addition, to, or are taken into consideration as forming part of, the present salary this gentleman receives? These are the principal points upon which I wish to ask for information.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The hon. Member must be aware that if we are to secure economy it is desirable to utilize, in the Public Service, the men who happen to hold offices which it is considered desirable to abolish. Many of the reforms which are required cannot possibly be carried into effect until vacancies occur. It would be most unwise to abolish existing offices at the cost of having to pay men for doing nothing; and, therefore, it is that actual changes which are eventually to take place do not occur until vacancies arise. From all I know as to what is going on the whole subject of the abolition of certain offices and the utilization of the present holders in other Government Offices is now under consideration with
    1382
    a view to economy. I am sorry that I cannot give a more specific explanation of what is taking place, because I have not made an inquiry lately as to what is being done in reference to the Report of the Committee. In answer to the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), the Secretary for Presentations is a gentleman who has held that office for many years in the Lord Chancellor's Department. The Lord Chancellor has a large number of livings in his gift, and there is an enormous amount of correspondence in reference to the presentations. The salary of this officer is what has been stated by the hon. Member. He is a clerk in the office of the Clerk of Parliaments in the House of Lords, and has a salary of £400 a-year for performing the whole of the work connected with the presentations to livings. In regard to the train-bearer to the Lord Chancellor, I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman seriously challenges that item. He allows a train-bearer to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and I think he is prepared to allow one to the Lord Chancellor. With regard to the pensions paid to Proctors, I may remind hon. Members how that matter stands. Fifteen or 20 years ago Doctors Commons was a close borough, and the old Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Courts were the happy hunting grounds of the proctors who enjoyed a monopoly of the practice. This business was thrown open about the year 1858 as nearly as I can recollect, and annuities were allowed to the men who were disestablished at that time of one-half of their income. Many of them were literally thrown out of employment, and some of them have since entered the Public Service. The senior Registrar draws, in addition to his salary as Registrar of the Probate Court, the half salary pension that is allowed him in consequence of the abolition of his former office in Doctors Commons. The compensation allowances he receives has nothing whatever to do with any Government Office; it is simply an annuity of half the annual income in consideration of the whole body of Proctors giving up the office they held and the rights they possessed of practising in Doctors Commons. Ultimately the offices were thrown open. Very few of the old Proctors are alive now, but those who are in existence have received this allow-

    1383
    ance ever since the offices were abolished. There is no connection whatever between the compensation for the abolition of the office of Proctor and the services which the Registrar is rendering to the High Court of Justice.
    MR. CONYBEARE: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said nothing about the redundant clerks.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I am sorry that I am unable at the present moment to answer that question. I do not know what that item refers to.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: It has always seemed to me far better that when any sort of compensation is given to a public servant it should be merged at the rate of so much per annum in any other office which he may hereafter hold. I find in this Vote an item for the Petty Bag Office of £800, with a second clerk at £400, and a third at £200. Some years ago I asked a Question about this Petty Bag Office of the Predecessor of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He could tell me nothing about it. It appeared then, from what was stated in the House, that the Office of the Petty Bag had at one time something to do, but that it has absolutely nothing to do now. The functions of the office are now done away with entirely, and it is an admitted fact that the office has nothing to do. It is admitted by the House and by the Attorney General in Opposition who generally takes a larger view of these cases than the Attorney General in Office. Then, unless the hon. and learned Gentleman can explain that these people have something to do, I really think that we ought to refuse the Vote by which it is maintained. I asked for an explanation from his Predecessor, and I failed to get one; the Government having virtually thrown up the case.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: Before the Vote is taken, there are two general subjects on which I wish to make an appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury. Of all the overpaid officials in this country, none are so overpaid as those who who hold minor and obscure legal appointments. Anyone who looks over the Estimate will find numberless examples of that fact, and anyone who is acquainted with the obscure legal appointments which do not come under this Estimate at all will know that my remark is only too true. The second
    1384
    observation I wish to make has reference to the private influence—amounting to nepotism—whichprevailsmore largely in this Department of the Public Service than anywhere else. I will only allude to one example of this kind in connection with the higher rank of these obscure legal appointments. The names of the Judges will be found to occur very frequently and suspiciously in connection with these minor appointments, especially in regard to those over which the Judges themselves have control. I hope the time will come when appointments of this nature will be taken out of the hands of those who fill high official positions themselves. I have been glad to hear the promise of the Attorney General, guarded and restricted as it was, that some action will be taken in reference to the Report of the influential Committee to which reference has been made by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). At the same time, I must say that I have no hope that anything will be done in the direction of reducing the number of officials of this class until the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) is again in Office and takes it in hand. I think the noble Lord is to be congratulated on the success which has attended his efforts this Session in reference to the Army Estimates, and I hope he will continue the same line of action and apply his efforts to other branches of the Public Service. I regret that the noble Lord is not at this moment in his place; but I see the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) present, on whom the mantle of the noble Lord has fallen. I trust that the hon. Member and the noble Lord, relying as they may do upon active support from this side of the House, will tackle this and other Estimates with the same energy which they have already applied to the Army Estimates.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend who has just down with regard to the efforts, in a public point of view, which have been made by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington to reduce the expenditure of this country. I believe that no Minister of late years has done a more signal public service in matters of economy and public expenditure than the noble Lord. Although,

    1385
    unfortunately, he is no longer on the Treasury Bench, I believe that what he has done will bear good fruit in the future. I do not, however, agree with my hon. and learned Friend in another observation he made—namely, that the answer of the Attorney General to the questions which were put to him was satisfactory and hopeful. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has actually read the Report of the Committee in question, of which Committee the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India is a Member. I think if he had done so he would scarcely have arrived at the conclusion that it was adequate to the occasion to give the answer which the Attorney General did. There is no doubt that in these Votes there are hundreds of thousands of pounds given away annually to men who are not earning their salaries. There are many men paid large annual salaries in this Vote who have little or nothing to do, and the Attorney General tells us that the House of Commons is to continue to pay these salaries until vacancies occur. There are men receiving many hundreds a-year—some of them salaries as high as £1,000 and £1,500 a-year—who do not do a day's work from one year's end to the other. I really think that the Vote ought to be reduced, although, looking at the attenuated condition of the House at this moment, it is almost hopeless to expect to effect any reasonable reduction. I see on this page of the Estimates, in which the salaries of the Masters appear, that there is a charge of £6,000 for the Official Referees of the Supreme Court, four in number. I remember with some satisfaction dealing with this Vote five or six years ago, and I was then successful in reducing the amount by £1,500, after a protracted struggle, on the simple ground that the officer charged for had no existence, and that the office itself had not been filled up for several years. We are charged in this Estimate for 16 Masters, and I maintain that the majority of these Masters do not do a day's work a week. The Committee declare, from the evidence adduced before them, first, that it has not been found necessary by the Masters to attend from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., or, even as the Judges do, from 10.30 a.m. to 4 p.m. They never give a full day's attendance at all. Secondly, they make arrange-
    1386
    ments among themselves to absent themselves from their ordinary duties; these arrangements are almost of universal occurrence. In fact, these worthy Masters invariably arrange among themselves to be, at least, one day away every week. Thirdly, the seven persons who were created Masters under the Act of 1879 have, in fact, not been called upon to undertake the general duties of Masters at all. I speak under correction, but I think I am right in saying that the authority of the Masters has increased under Order 54, Rule 12, of the Rules of the Supreme Court. They receive some £200, £300, and £500 a-year, their jurisdiction in Chambers having been extended, and they have received authority to discharge other duties which they were not previously authorized to discharge. In consideration of that fact their salaries were materially increased; but since that date they appear, if anything, to have had rather less to do than they had before. The Committee expressed an opinion that the time had now arrived when these Masters should participate, to the best of their ability, in the work apportioned to them at the time the offices were rearranged. Was there ever such a Report made in regard to any public servants? It simply means that the time has now arrived when these Masters are to endeavour to earn their salaries; and because they really fail to do a day's work—I will not say that there is any Master who is unwilling to perform it to the best of his ability; but if he fails to do the work he is at liberty to retire from the office on the pension to which he is entitled by Act of Parliament. The Attorney General does not even go as far as that. He says that we must wait until a vacancy occurs. I contend that the Government themselves ought to make a vacancy whenever they find that a man is inefficient, or is disinclined to work. We have here the strongest representations that were ever made by any Committee with regard to any question in reference to the organization of judicial offices. We have here distinct and emphatic statements that the Masters have not sufficient work to fill up their time, and so conscious are the Masters of that fact that they never attend at all on Saturdays or Mondays, as anybody knows who has occasion to go to Chambers. The Masters are

    1387
    never there at all on those days. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir Edward Clarke) dissented.] I see that the Solicitor General shakes his head; but I am afraid that he has forgotten his junior days. I would ask him to consult any practising solicitor as to his experience of the attendance of the Masters. Among other things which the Masters used to be connected with was the duty of taxing costs. What is the state of that taxation business now? It is most disgracefully in arrear. The taxation of bills of costs are put down in the diaries of the Masters for appointments weeks and weeks in advance, and even then a large number of bills of costs are thrown over the Long Vacation, because the men appointed to discharge the work in the Law Courts do not care to do an honest day's work. The delay which has occurred in taxing bills of costs is nothing short of a public scandal. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite the Attorney General objects to that word; but I am speaking the simple truth, and I think I am using very moderate language in regard to it. The delay which occurs in taxing bills of costs is nothing short of a scandal. I know of a case, which occurred only the other day, in which it took practically the whole of the year in order to get a bill of costs, of no very difficult character, taxed. If the Attorney General wishes, I will lay the case before him. It is, however, only one specimen of the condition to which this Office has been reduced; and I believe that it applies to every single branch of the Courts of Justice. There is not, I believe, a single paragraph or passage in this Report— although it extends over many folios —which does not show that there is immense room for reduction in the public expenditure, and also in the number of the staff. I believe that by a little readjustment of the work a considerable portion of the expenditure might be saved. One of the greatest grievances now is that the Masters' duty is altogether evaded. The staff as it exists is more than enough to discharge all the business; but, notwithstanding the fact that there is business enough to fill their whole time, they have got into habits of idleness, and have allowed the work to get into such arrear that the offices themselves have become disor-
    1388
    ganized. I hope we shall elicit from the Attorney General something more hopeful than the assurances he has already given to us. The Report of the Royal Commission shows that the proper remedy is the reduction of the staff. In order to enforce what I have said I will propose not to reduce the staff by the seven Masters who were appointed in 1879, but to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the salary of one Master—namely, £1,500 a-year; and I also wish to give Notice that I shall carefully watch the subject between this and next year, with a view of moving a further reduction if the work is not satisfactorily performed. I think I am discharging a public duty in saying that the Masters, to whose neglect of duty I have referred in regard to their attendance, are Masters Gordon, Walton, Pollock, and Brook. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,500, the salary of one Master.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £249,238, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The hon. Gentleman has complained of the way in which I answered his first question. The hon. Gentleman will remember that he made a general statement, and that he did not call my attention to any specific case, or give me the slightest notice in regard to the points he intended to raise. I had no idea that he intended to enter into these matters in detail, and because I did not specifically deal with the various matters he has referred to be has complained of my answer. All I can say is that, not knowing the points to which he desired to direct attention, I gave the best answer I could in a general way, without, in any respect, desiring to minimize the importance of the question. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the time which has elapsed between the presentation of this Report and the presentation of the Estimates; but I think his criticism has scarcely any foundation. The detailed Report on which the hon. Member has founded his arguments was not presented until the 15th of March this year, and time has not, therefore, permitted the Treasury to bring into effect a practical reduction of the Estimates in accordance with the recommendations contained in

    1389
    the Report. I admit—and I think I had admitted it when I spoke before—that the whole question of the organization of the central offices of the Royal Courts requires consideration. The hon. Gentleman says that no Master does a day's work. Although I have not for many years practised as a junior barrister, I do not believe that that sweeping assertion is well-founded. I quite admit that some years ago the hours were probably less than might be expected in connection with such appointments; but although it may be true that some of the older Masters have not worked as many hours as might be expected, yet others come early and sit late. I do not say that there is no room for improvement, but I do not think there is any ground for a serious attack upon the mode in which the Masters discharge their duty. With regard to the recommendations of the Committee to which the hon. Member has referred, they certainly do not go as far as he suggests. The Committee recommended that ultimately 15 Masters would be sufficient to do the work. At present there are 16, although there is power to have 18, and I understand the recommendation will be carried out by not appointing a successor when the first vacancy occurs. Then, again, the hon. Member says there is a great deal of taxing business in arrear. I do not object, in the least degree, to the word "scandal," if used when it is the proper word. All I said was in reference to an entirely different matter which was mooted this afternoon, and I said that I thought it did not merit the description given to it of "scandal." Nor do I think that the matters which have taken place in connection with the taxation of bills of costs deserves the word "scandal." If the hon. Member will bring before me any specific case I should be only too glad to communicate with the Taxing Masters, as I have done already, at the request of other Members of this House, and the result of my communication has been to show that there has not been any neglect on the part of those who are engaged in taxing these bills. Indeed, it is a question in regard to which a good deal may be said on both sides. As a matter of fact, there is a good deal of difficulty in getting the bills sent, in; and, no doubt, shortly before the Long Vacation there is pressure upon the Office. If the hon.
    1390
    Gentleman wishes me to inquire into any particular case I will do so. And now let me say one word in regard to the Official Referees. I do not think the hon. Member has done these gentlemen justice.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I did not complain of the present Referees.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I am pleased to hear the hon. Member say so. Although they are in the early years of office I believe that the work they do is well appreciated by the public, and that they have their time fully occupied up to the period of the Long Vacation. Mr. Ridley told me that his list of appointments was quite filled up to the 15th of October, and that he is unable to fix any other appointment, which is a proof that the business of these gentlemen is being properly attended to. I think I have now fully dealt with all the matters which the hon. Member for East Donegal has brought under my notice, and I can assure him that the questions he has raised will not be overlooked by those who are interested in them. I am indebted to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) for reminding me that about two years ago a Question was put in this House with regard to the Office of Petty Bag. Since then he has, no doubt, been engrossed by other affairs of State, and only to-day has found time to revert to the subject. More by accident than by any merit of my own I happen to have obtained, since the time that Question was put, some information in regard to the office, and I was, fortunately, able to put my hand upon it this afternoon. I do not complain of the burning anxiety which the hon. Member evinces for information in regard to the Petty Bag Office; but I may inform him that the duties performed by the clerk of the Petty Bag are useful, and must be performed by somebody. Perhaps it may not be necessary to fill up the office again, but the duties must be performed by some other clerk. The sole reason for not putting an end to the office at once was that the age of the present holder did not render it desirable in the public interest to compensate him. The duties of the office consist in registering articles of clerkship for solicitors, enrolling solicitors in the Supreme Court, sending certificates to the Master of the Rolls for signature, taking in monthly notices, and a number of other

    1391
    formal matters, some of which must be performed by some clerk. I have been told that the office will not be kept alive after the present holder vacates it. If the hon. Member has any suggestion to make as to how the duties ought to be transferred, I should be glad to consider it; but, as I have said, there are substantial duties which must be performed by someone.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I wish, to know what course the Government intend to take with respect to the Report of the Committee and the central office? I am bound to say that to me the Report of the Committee is not altogether satisfactory, and that it does not deal adequately with the grievances brought before the Committee, while the remedies which are recommended are very insufficient, when we look at the evidence on which the Report is based. I am very doubtful as to the value of these Departmental Committees; but I concur with what the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) has said in reference to the Committee now sitting upstairs. I say that the very best sort of inquiry into the details of the public expenditure is one that is conducted by a Select Committee of this House. The Committee presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington shows that that is the very best Court of Inquiry in matters of this kind; and if the labours of the noble Lord and his coadjutors were extended to the various branches of the Civil Service, I am satisfied that they would result in very much greater efficiency and economy. I believe that in reference to the enormous sum which is now being spent annually on our Supreme Court, it might be better expended, and secure better work, if we were to employ fewer men at much lower salaries. I have said that, in my opinion, the Report of the Committee is insufficient and ineffective; but I want to know what course the Government propose to take? Is the Report to be pigeon-holed, and are they not going to act upon it? I think that nothing short of legislation will be adequate to meet the emergency of the case, and the House is entitled to hear from the Government whether they intend seriously to take the Report into consideration, and submit to Parliament next Session, through the action
    1392
    of the Treasury, or through the action of the House, some plan for dealing with the matter, or for dealing with, to use the word which my hon. and learned Friend used, the "scandal" which prevails in connection with the Department which is entrusted with the administration of justice in this country. I must enter my protest against the theory which pervaded the whole of the speech of the Attorney General that gentlemen who accept office in the Civil Service have a right to say—"When I took that office the hours were so and so, and I have a right to claim the abolition terms now that the hours and the duties have been altered."
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I did not say so.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I did not say that the hon. and learned Gentleman did; but it rather struck me that that was the theory which pervaded the whole of his speech. I hold that we have a right to expect from every man a fair day's work for a fair day's wages; and I trust we shall at once dismiss the idea that public servants, who do not render one-half of the time that would be required from them if they were engaged in private enterprize, are entitled to retire on pensions the moment any change is made in the duties of the Department. I believe that the Non-Effective Service is now costing this country nearer £7,000,000 than £6,000,000 annually, and every change which is made increases the number of pensions. I object to the practice altogether. A military man obeys the command of the Crown, and goes where for he is sent —to Egypt or to India, or anywhere else. No man in the Military or Naval Service has a right to pick and choose. If he does not like the Service of the Crown let him leave it; but as long as he is paid a full salary the Crown has a right to the whole of his services. When we are dealing with highly-paid officials, if we find a Department where the work is not sufficient to give full employment we have a right to add additional duties. I trust the Secretary to the Treasury will give the Committee an assurance that the Government intend to act on the Report of the Departmental Committee; to carry the recommendations contained in the Report further, and, if necessary, to give effect to them by legislation.
    MR. PICTON: I think I am entitled to some little explanation in regard to the point which I raised.
    MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member for Leicester has called my attention to the fact that one of the first-class clerks is an excellent officer, and does a great deal of work, and, in his opinion, is eligible for promotion to the status of a chief clerk. He says that this first-class clerk does much excellent work, and he went on to say that he is not even a chief clerk. I may, however, point out that there is only one chief clerk.
    MR. PICTON: I mentioned the suppression of the office of secretary, which was the ease I was anxious to meet.
    MR. JACKSON: Yes; and there are six other first-class clerks, in regard to whose offices suppressions will have to take place. It is intended to reduce the number to four as vacancies arise. I believe that the actual number in employment now is five. There are six third-class clerks, which number it is also intended to reduce to four.
    MR. PICTON: The Visitors in Lunacy used to have a secretary of their own, and there is now only one first-class clerk, and a chief clerk to the Visitors. The first-class clerk has really the entire management of the business.
    MR. JACKSON: I understood the hon. Gentleman to refer to the first-class clerk to the office of Masters in Lunacy. There is a chief clerk there.
    MR. PICTON: No; my remarks applied to the Visitors in Lunacy.
    MR. JACKSON: I am quite prepared to admit that this officer is in himself an excellent officer and servant; but I think the hon. Member will hardly expect me to join him in advocating in this House the raising of that gentleman's salary or position. I can assure the hon. Member that my position is a most unpleasant one in having to resist constant applications of this kind, which are made to me not only outside but inside this House. I therefore hope the hon. Member will rest content with having called attention to the excellent services of this officer without pressing me to raise his salary or promote him. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall has made some reference to the redundant clerks.
    MR. CONYBEARE: The items I refer to appear upon pages 209 and 215, one of which amounts to the sum of
    1394
    £3,000. There appear to be five of these redundant clerks.
    MR. JACKSON: The redundant clerks arise from what is called the reorganization of the office. The hon. Gentleman knows that of late years, in order to effect greater efficiency in the work, it has been found necessary to undertake the re-organization of a particular office, and when that is done you have a choice of evils, either to retire particular clerks on a pension, or to keep them on as redundant clerks, and endeavour to absorb them in other Departments as vacancies arise. I am quite prepared to say that I have no sympathy with redundant clerks. I look upon men in that position as not being very useful public servants. They are not even square men in around hole, but they are in no hole at all. But at times it is a question of great difficulty to know how to deal with the abolition of offices when the work of re-organization is being carried out in reference to any particular Department. The question of compensation and superannuation is, no doubt, a very important one; but, at the same time, it is one that it is very difficult to deal with. I have entertained strong feelings on the question; but you must carry out the contracts you have entered into with the servants already in the service of the State, and if any good is to be effected in regard to the question it must be faced in regard to the question as a whole, and as a question of future policy in connection with the whole of the Public Service. We have no right, however, to break our contracts with existing public servants, and I am afraid, therefore, that in carrying out reforms we must have, from time to time, redundant clerks. I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) what action the Government are prepared to take in regard to the Report of the Departmental Committee. I am not in a position actually to pledge the Government to bring in the legislation necessary to give effect to the Report; but it has been, read and re-read at the Treasury with very great care and attention, and I can promise my right hon. Friend that the Government will give full effect to it as far as they can.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I see that the second Order of the Day is the Super-

    1395
    annuation Acts Amendment Bill. I certainly hope and trust that the Government are not going to press that Bill forward to-night.
    MR. JACKSON: No.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I am glad to hear it. In regard to what has been said by the hon. Gentleman as to redundant clerics and the question of superannuation, I trust that whatever legislation the Government propose to introduce will have the opportunity of receiving full consideration at the hands of the House. I am quite satisfied for the present with having elicited from the hon. Gentleman the frank answer he gave to my question, and I am exceedingly indebted to him for the admission—for that is what it practically amounts to—that these redundant clerks are really clerks on compensation or pension allowances. These compensations, superannuations, and pensions are constantly cropping up, and I am afraid we shall have to go through the whole question again when we reach Class VI. of these Estimates. What I wish to call attention to is the exceeding injustice which one class of public servants is treated as compared with another. At one end of the scale, if a man's office is abolished when the Department is re-organized he is compensated or pensioned; while at the other end of the scale—for instance, in the case of Dockyard labourers and artizans —they are turned off, their homes broken up—I speak with knowledge of the fact, for some of these men are among my own constituents—and reduced to starvation with, at most, a week's notice, and without one farthing of compensation. We never hear of their claims, and yet, if any class of public servants deserve compensation, assuredly these Dockyard artizans and labourers do. In the case of these Civil Service clerks there is not one of them who ever did more than six hours' work a-day; whereas the artizans and labourers in the Dockyards have to work 10 or 12 hours—to start early in the morning and leave late at night. Yet they are liable to be turned off whenever the work is slack without the slightest consideration for past services, and nothing is offered to them beyond a week's notice. What I say is, let these pensions by superannuation allowances be made equal, and go to the bottom of the scale as well as the top. Personally, I am not in favour of superannuation
    1396
    allowances at all. Give the men a round sum and have done with it. I do not wish to contend for a moment that the State should break faith with anybody with whom a contract has been entered into; but when there is the reconstruction of a Department I would suggest that the contracts should be of shorter duration, and that new servants should be liable to receive notice to quit, say, at the end of six months or a year. The same rule should be applicable to all Civil servants, including the highly-paid officials who enjoy comfortable apartments in the Public Offices, have very light duties to perform, and who spend a considerable portion of the day in reading the newspaper before they commence their public duties. I shall certainly keep my eye upon this matter, and I can assure hon. Members opposite that if these discharges of the Dockyard labourers are continued another year as they have been of late, and superannuation allowances, pensions, and compensations continue to be given to persons at the other end of the scale, I shall seriously consider what steps ought to be taken to impress the injustice of the system with force, and, perhaps, in a disagreeable manner, upon Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. E. ROBERTSON: I wish to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to a matter which is, perhaps, of minor importance, but which is of some public interest—I refer to the Vote for the Pay Office of the Supreme Court. I do not propose to challenge any items in the Vote; but I want to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the large amount of dissatisfaction which exists in the public mind with respect to the manner in which a portion of the business of that office is managed. I refer to the unclaimed funds in Chancery, the management of which is in the hands of the officer mentioned here. No public office causes a larger amount of heartbreaking among the ignorant public, or raises more unfounded hopes, than this branch of the Supreme Court. It is believed by many persons that the amount of the unclaimed funds in Chancery reaches something like £100,000,000 sterling. There exists, not only in London, but in the Provinces, flourishing agencies which lay themselves out to deceive the public by the most grossly exaggerated statements of the amount of money lying in the charge of the Pay

    1397
    Office. I have been told by a gentleman connected with the Press that one particular adventurer must have been spending as much as £350 a-week in advertisements asking people to apply to him for information which will lead them to realize fortunes in reference to these funds. As a matter of fact, the real amount, as the hon. Gentleman told me in answer to a Question a short time ago—the real amount of unclaimed money in the Court of Chancery is not much more than £1,000,000. The largest unclaimed estate does not exceed £15,000, and roost of the amounts relate to small estates of £200 or £300. I think it is of the highest importance that the mystery surrounding this Chancery Fund should, as far as possible, be dispelled, and that is the object of my appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury now. A curious incident happened the other day. Some hon. Members noticed a very dilapidated elderly gentleman passing up and down the pavement in front of this House between two sandwich boards, upon each of which was an appeal to the public denouncing the Government and the Members of this House for the alleged systematic robbery that is perpetrated upon the country in regard to unclaimed funds. That person believes that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury and his Colleagues, and the Court of Chancery, are keeping from him an estate, now in Chancery, of £7,000,000. That is this man's honest belief, and no doubt many of the public who read the statement believe it also. It is mainly in order to get rid of the false hopes engendered in the public mind, and to stop the nefarious traffic on the part of certain advertising agents, that the Secretary to the Treasury should direct his attention to the question whether or not more information can be supplied as to the details of the fund, which, as we know, only amounts to something like £1,000,000. I am quite aware of the difficulty of giving the detailed information which the public would like to have; and I believe that the books of the Pay Office alone would not convey much as to the persons who are entitled to this fund. No doubt that necessarily follows from the way in which the books are kept; but possibly something might be done by an investigation of the orders under which the money has been paid
    1398
    into Court. At any rate, this at least might be done—the hon. Gentleman, on the occasion of his next triennial statement, might see his way to publish the amount of the fund in the hands of the Court. The public would rely more upon a statement of that kind than upon a mere statement made by a Member of this House; and it would be seen how small the total amount of the fund really is, as well as the smallness of the items which stand in the name of the Department of the Pay Office. One other suggestion I have to make is this. I hope that hon. Gentlemen, at all events, will try to give as much information as possible concerning this mysterious deposit which has misled so many innocent people. At any rate, he can do this. Many of these sums, small and contemptible as they are, have been standing there for a long time. Besides making public all that can be known as to the nature and ownership of the money, I suggest that the shortest way out of the difficulty will be to make an end of the whole fund—to confiscate the moneys and appropriate them to the use of the State. By adopting something in the nature of a Statute of Limitations concerning the funds held by the Pay Office an end would be put to the mysteries and mischief which at present attach to this fund.
    MR. FLYNN: my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal has moved the reduction of this Vote, and I intend to support his Motion. I feel bound to protest against the tone adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in replying to the observations of my hon. Friend. The hon. and learned Member complained very strongly of the language used by my hon. Friend, who made serious charges against a certain class of officers, and against the maladministration of some of the Government Departments. Since my hon. Friend made his remarks I have taken the trouble to read the Report on which he founded his complaint, and I have arrived at the conclusion that they are mildness itself. So far from being too strong, they are more than justified by the facts which were elicited by the Evidence and Report of the Committee. I agree with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton that there is ample room for the investigation of these

    1399
    Civil Service Estimates by a Select Committee of this House, and I am afraid that the House of Commons will make no real progress in the direction of economy until such an inquiry is undertaken. At the same time, I cannot see why Her Majesty's Government should feel it their duty to take hon. Members to task when they bring forward grievances upon matters of this kind, and accuse hon. Members who bring them forward of making statements more or less extravagant from personal motives. I think it is the duty of every Member of the House to inquire, as far as possible, into the details of these Estimates, and to see whether they have been prepared with a due regard to economy. No doubt the reason why we have had this awakened interest in these Civil Service Estimates is the success of the course which has been pursued in regard to the Army Estimates. It was not because it was not well known that abuses existed in regard to the military expenditure of the country, but because the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, having retired from the Government in a huff, drew public attention to these matters, and got a vast amount of credit for the inquiry which, at his instance, was instituted. I think the credit ought to be shared by hon. Members who have constantly spoken upon these matters, but who have not had the same opportunity of directing public attention to them. I cannot say that I approve of the tone in which the hon. and learned Attorney General replied to my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend drew attention to a specific grievance, upon which a Departmental Committee has reported plainly; and it seems that the sum and substance of the reform which has been effected is that the number of Masters has been cut down from 17 to 16. The Attorney General said that he was in favour of the number being 15; but the recommendation of the Committee goes further than that—namely, that the Masters who were appointed under the Act of 1879 had, as a matter of fact, not been called upon to perform the technical duty of Masters.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Those are not the Masters who were referred to by the hon. Member for East Donegal.
    MR. FLYNN: With all due respect, my hon. Friend referred to the whole of the Masters in the Supreme Court.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Yes; but not to these seven. He said nothing about them.
    MR. FLYNN: I trust that the Committee will go through the full details of these appointments. I do not by any means desire that the Committee should inquire into the wages paid to every charwoman employed in the Public Service, or into the salaries of porters and messengers; but, in my opinion, there can be no doubt that gross jobbery and corruption exist in many departments, and until hon. Members in every quarter of the House take the question of economy up, there will not be that fruitful expenditure of public money and that good administration which all political Parties are interested in establishing.
    MR. HANBURY: I wish to back up what has been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson). I do not know how far it extends to the towns. Everybody who has had any experience of the villages of the country must know that the question raised by the hon. Member is a very serious matter indeed. There are few villages where one would not find three or four people who have been taken in by such advertising, and who have spent a great deal of money in trying to get estates which have had no real existence. I think the matter is a very important one, and I hope the Government will try to do something in regard to it.
    MR. JACKSON: I may say at once that I entirely sympathize with the desire which has been expressed by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to do something to prevent or lessen the inconvenience and even hardship inflicted on poor people by the system referred to. But the question is, in what way is it to be met? And that is not an easy question. These frauds—for such they may be termed—were perpetrated upon poor people by persons who, having got some information from the statements now made public, proceeded to trade upon it, and get people to pay them fees, on the pretence of searching for estates which are vested in certain names, and so on. What I feel about the matter is this—I feel that if we in-

    1401
    crease the amount of information which is published, the more scope will be given for the operations of such persona. I feel that the question is a very important one, and I promise the hon. Member that it shall receive full consideration. Looking to the importance of the question, I have made a memorandum to consider with those responsible whether anything can be done to dissipate the very large amount of unreal anticipation indulged in from time to time, and check, if possible, the frauds which are perpetrated. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston that in the country districts these societies do great mischief; and the discussion which has taken place to-day may, I hope, do something to put the persons who are likely to become the victims of the fraud upon their guard, and to prevent them from paying fees for results which can never be realized.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I entirely sympathize with what has been said on both sides of the House. Not merely is there an unreal expectation produced in the minds of these people, but hon. Members themselves are made the victims of these frauds. I have myself received letters from some of my constituents, asking me to take action for them in reference to some of these estates which they feel themselves to be entitled to, and I have often found myself in a position of great difficulty about the matter. Some time ago I saw published in The Daily Chronicle and The Daily Telegraph a copy of rules issued by the High Court of Justice, showing how persons are to proceed for the purpose of claiming these bogus fortunes. I took the trouble to have it reprinted in a local newspaper, in order to relieve myself of a certain amount of trouble. As I presume these rules were published by authority, is it not possible, in a fresh publication of the rules, to give the further information which the hon. and learned Member for Dundee has suggested, and which will prove useful information to all who imagine they have any interest in the matter. I do not say who the offenders are who are trying to make a living by the publication of the advertisements which have been referred to; but I believe the principal firm is that of Cox and Sons, Southampton Buildings, who publish a list of 50,000 names. I have no doubt
    1402
    that if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General will look at that list he will find his own name there. I looked at the list with some curiosity, and found my own name in it. The system to which the hon. Member has called attention inflicts a hardship not only upon poor people, but also upon Members of Parliament, who have a great deal of correspondence thrown upon them in consequence of it. I think that some further information might be granted showing how far the public may rely upon the statements that are put forth. For instance, it may be possible, when publishing the rules for attendance in the High Court of Justice, to give warning that no authentic information as to this unclaimed fund can be obtained except from the High Court of Justice itself.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: If the hon. Member will send to the Secretary to the Treasury a copy of the rules to which he has referred, my hon. Friend will see what can be done in the matter.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I am perfectly satisfied with the discussion which I have raised, and I have no desire further to oppose the Vote. As I have no wish that the discussion should exceed due limits, I now beg leave to withdraw the Motion for the reduction of the Vote.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. CHILDERS: Before the Question is put I want to ask for a little information. The Committee is probably aware that Lord Brougham, in one of the legal reforms he effected, abolished the former superintendence over the Middlesex Registry, and created new Registrars. Now, the office of Registrar has become, strictly speaking, a sinecure. There were three, and two did nothing, one signing every quarter cheques for their salaries. Some time within the last few years two out of the three Registrars' offices became vacant, and there was a re-arrangement of the office. Two of the Chiefs of the Common Law Courts who had the patronage did not, I believe, exercise it, leaving only one sinecurist. There is a fourth Registrar who represents the public, the Queen's Remembrancer, who does not receive any share of the fees, his proportion being paid into the Exchequer.

    1403
    The question I want to ask is this. At present the total fees which are paid are, I think, about £7,600; and I wish to know whether only half of this goes into the Treasury, or whether the remaining sinecurists only receive one-fourth of the whole, three-fourths going to the Exchequer?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Will my right hon. Friend tell me if he is referring to any particular item in the present Vote?
    MR. CHILDERS: my hon. and learned Friend will find the item I refer to on page 204 of the Estimate—"Queen's Remembrancer share of fees of Middlesex Registry—£3,800." It is rumoured that only half of those fees go to the Treasury, and that the other half is paid to the sinecurist. I wish to know whether the Government intend, as former Governments did, to put an end to this anomalous state of things?
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for calling my attention to the matter, and I will make inquiry. My recollection is that the fees received by the Queen's Remembrancer were handed over to the Exchequer some three or four years ago, and that the duties then devolved upon the Senior Master of the Court of Exchequer—Sir Frederick Pollock.
    MR. CHILDERS: I think the Attorney General is mistaken. The Remembrancer has never received any of these fees for, at least, the last 20 years. Under the old arrangement the Remembrancer was entitled to receive a fourth of the fees; but they were always paid by him into the Exchequer, and the change in the office of Remembrancer has had no effect at all. What I want to know is what the actual division of the fees is; whether it is legal; and if it is the intention of the Government to put the matter upon a more satisfactory footing?
    MR. JACKSON: I believe that the entry in the Vote represents only one-half of the fees, and that the other half is paid to Lord Truro.
    MR. CHILDERS: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not quite understand the question. There were four Registrars, one appointed by each of the Chiefs of the old Courts, and one representing the Court of Chancery, whose fees are now paid to the Treasury. What I want to know is—are half of
    1404
    those fees paid into the Exchequer in respect of the Remembrancer, and are the other half paid to the remaining sinecurist, or is there some other division, leaving the remaining sinecurist in receipt, as formerly, of only one-fourth of the total fees? I would further ask, seeing that the whole matter is so anomalous, whether the Government propose to deal with it in any way?
    MR. JACKSON: I believe the right hon. Gentleman is correct in his statement of the facts, and that one-half of the fees only are paid into the Treasury. All I can is that the Government will endeavour, as far as possible, to deal with the matter.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Out of these fees one-half, I believe, goes to Lord Truro, and I have never been, able to understand on what ground he is entitled to one-half. As one of the original Registrars he may have been entitled to one-fourth of the fees; but by what process of reasoning it is made out that he is entitled to one-half I fail to understand. The whole of this Vote is full of anomalies in regard to fees of this kind; and the Treasury do not appear to realize the way in which they are going down hill in regard to the matter. I have here a paper which has been circulated to hon. Members of this House within the last fortnight. It is an account showing the receipts and expenditure of the High Court of Chancery for the year ending March, 1887. It shows that while the receipts for the year ending March, 1887, have been less than the receipts for the year ending March, 1886, on the other hand, the expenditure has gone up by no less than £6,000 in the latter year, as compared with the former—that is to say, that while the receipts have increased, and are now equal to £668,000 a-year, the result, so far as the public are concerned, is that with all the expenditure the delay in the administration of the law is getting, if anything, worse than it ever was before. You have, in connection with the administration of justice, an extravagantly paid staff and a great arrear of work; you have that staff indulging in an increasing length of holidays independent of the Long Vacation, and altogether unequalled in any other Department of the Civil Service. Let me take the Chancery Division in order to show how great

    1405
    a grievance this is. In the Chancery Division the costs alone amount to no less than £2,000,000 sterling a-year; that is what the suitors have to pay for the luxury of going into the Court of Chancery—that is to say, about £10,000 for every day in which the Courts are open. In this particular Division the salaries of officials come to over£l00,000 a-year. There are 310 working days in the year, and Chambers, to say nothing of the Courts, are only open upon 205, and they are in reality closed, except for a small and special amount of work, for 105 days. As they are only open for 205 days, they are for one-third of a working year practically at a standstill, and this, too, in spite of the enormous sums of money the suitors in the Courts of Chancery have to pay, and the salaries of the officials, which, as I have said, amount to more than £100,000 a-year. I say that in this particular branch the system is perfectly indefensible, and it has been recognized that something ought to be done. An inquiry has been instituted, and in regard to the Chancery Division we have had, just as we had in the case of the Central Office, a Report from a very powerful Committee on the constitution of the Division, and the mode in which the work is done. Although the Committee were not quite unanimous, still the recommendations each Committee severally made run very much on parallel lines. One of the considerations on which that Report is based is the great amount of arrears in almost every branch of the Chancery business. Going back to October, 1884, the total number of cases at that time, the beginning of the legal year, was 842. It consisted of witness actions, non-witness actions, and adjourned summonses for further consideration. The sittings began in October, 1884; on the 23rd of May, 1885, when the Courts had been at work for more than two-thirds of the legal year, the total number of cases still in the Court of Chancery was 667—that is to say, that the Court only reduced the arrears by one-third, whereas two-thirds of the sitting year had gone. Although the Committee report that the present number of Judges attached to the Chancery Division cannot cope with the work with which they have to deal, and could not satisfactorily do so even if all the arrears were wiped
    1406
    off, nothing practical has yet been done. Surely the administration of justice between man and man is the very first function for which any Government exists. The one great aim of the Government in regard to the internal affairs of the country is the administration of justice between subject and subject; and here you have from the men who form that Committee, including the Master of the Rolls, five of the Judges and four other eminent men, an admission or a statement of the grievous kind I have just read, dated the 7th of August, 1885, two years ago, and absolutely nothing practical has yet been done. The business is so much in arrear that the Judges are unable to cope with it. I find that in October there were 100 witness actions before Mr. Justice Kay, and by the 23rd of May there were still 92; before Mr. Justice Chitty there were 70 in October, and 80 in May; while before Mr. Justice Pearson, who, I believe, has taken more witness cases than any other Judge, the numbers were 73 in October and 46 in May. Before Mr. Justice North there were 127 in October, and after two-thirds of the legal year had passed the number had been only reduced to 83. It is in the witness cases that the delay of the Court of Chancery is most noticeable, and it must result in great public inconvenience, owing to the expense of bringing witnesses up from the country, and of keeping them in London day after day over adjournments. The Committee, on that point, report that the interruption of the trial of witness actions is one of the greatest evils of the present system; and, in the opinion of the Committee, witness actions ought to be heard continually de die in diem. Sir Horace Davey, one of the Committee, proposed to break up the three Judges of the Chancery Division into three Courts of two Judges each, one of each being told off for the hearing of witness actions. Mr. Justice Pearson, although he did not fall in altogether with Sir Horace Davey's scheme, admitted that it was necessary for some arrangement to be made by which witness actions should be taken without interruption This is an important point, and one that well deserves the attention of the Government as soon as they can turn to it. But there is another thing which, from a practical point of view, is also of

    1407
    importance, and that is the abolition of the separate offices of Registrar and Taxing Master. The delay in taxation in Chancery is just as bad as it is on the Common Law side. "With regard to the grievances of the public, one of the greatest of them from a client's point of view, although it is more satisfactory from a Queen's Counsel's point of view, or a leader's point of view, is in connection with the business known as motions. The present system results in motions only being taken in the different Courts on certain days. If a suitor wants to have a certain motion made, the leaders mate applications in their order of seniority, so that the juniors have practically no chance. At any rate, their chance is so limited that it would be foolish for a client to persist in entrusting the motion to a junior. The result is that he is obliged to go to a senior and to pay 20 or 30 guineas, where it would be quite possible for the same thing to be done for two or three guineas, or probably for one. Of course, the leading counsel in the different Chancery Courts are able to dictate enormous fees for making these motions. What I would suggest is that motions should be taken in every Court on every day. I believe a system of that kind would result in much greater expedition, and it would certainly result in an enormous reduction of the fees paid by suitors to counsel for moving these motions. I am quite ready to admit that this would do away with the valuable preserve which the leading counsel now enjoy; but it would be better for all classes concerned in every other respect.
    MR. MOLLOY: I hope the Attorney General is prepared to make some reply to the statements which my hon. Friend has made. The matter is one which has been discussed regularly for the last two or three years; and I am afraid that the Government, when they are getting the Estimates at the end of the Session, do not care a straw for the public interests so long as they can secure their Vacation. Last year a promise was made from tae Treasury Bench that the matter would be looked into, and the excuse then given for saying nothing on the subject was that it was new matter which had been brought on without Notice. The Government said, however, that they would inquire into the matter, and
    1408
    they hoped by this year to give a complete answer. Now, to my own knowledge, this subject was brought on four years ago by my hon. Friend. He was promised then that something should be done; but nothing whatever has been done in the interests of the public. I am afraid that the interests of the public are very little cared for in these legal matters in this House. So far as my experience goes, the difficulty is that whenever there are lawyers concerned you get that which is tedious, expensive, and extravagant. The motion day in Court which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend is, to my mind, one of the greatest possible frauds. It is necessary that motions should be made by senior counsel in the order of seniority, and the result is that the motions are never fully disposed of, and cost the suitors an enormous sum of money. This is an arrangement of a barristerial character; it is practically, as far as I can see, an arrangement made among the leading counsel; the leading counsel have the preference in these matters, and there is no option but to pay their fee. Of course, the hon. and learned Attorney General will get up and say that he has nothing whatever to do with the arrangement; that it is not in his Department; and that he has no power to control the arrangements of the Court. But this is not an answer which should be given by the Government in these days, because the time has arrived when a more business like reply should be returned to a complaint of this kind. Let us take the case of arrears. My own experience is that the longer the Vacation the better it is for the public; but, unfortunately, the public will go to law, and, as a consequence, under the present system the list of arrears is simply astonishing. There is no country in Europe where the law is so tedious and expensive as it is in England. My hon. Friend near me says that the Judges, barristers, and professional men take a vacation of one-third of a-year, but I say that it is much nearer half-a-year. There is no other profession which has a half-year's Vacation; yet the practice has grown up among lawyers, and there seems to be no means of stopping it without the interference of the Government. The result of this is that the unfortunate litigants, having brought up their witnesses to London at a large ex-

    1409
    pense, after hanging about the Courts and incurring charges which are simply frightful when compared with the amounts, as a rule, in dispute, have to wait during the Vacation of 150 days before their cases are heard. I ask whether the Government cannot give us some assurance that there will be an alteration in this respect? The question is not a Party question; it is ii matter which concerns the public interest; and I sincerely trust that the present Government, which professes to represent the public interest, will say that this grievance, which no one can deny is a serious one, shall be looked into and, if possible, removed. I think it will be a very simple matter to deal with this question. You may either appoint more Judges, or, what would be infinitely better, make the Judges you have do a greater amount of work than they do at present, and not take, as my hon. and learned Friend does, half-a-year for Vacation. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, who is present, could settle this question in a very short time; and I hope he will say that, as one of the public, he recognizes the hardship that has been described, and that he will make some inquiry in order to see whether steps cannot be taken to put a stop to it.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE): I did not at once rise to reply to the observations of the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), because many of the matters dealt with by him were, however important, of a kind with, regard to which the Government cannot take any direct action. The hon. and learned Member for the Birr Division of King's County (Mr. Molloy) has said that all lawyers are tedious and expensive.
    MR. MOLLOY: I said that the law in England was tedious.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I admit there is delay in the administration of justice in both branches of the law; but I am not prepared to admit that the administration of the law in this country is slower or more tedious than in any other country of Europe. I know that the administration of the law in this country has changed of late years; it is less tedious, and, in some respects, less expensive, than it was before the year
    1410
    1875. But with respect to the hearing of particular counsel, it is impossible for the Government to interfere. I quite agree with the hon. Member for East Donegal that there is a disadvantage connected with the system which has been adopted, not only in the Chancery Courts, but in the Common Law Courts, of allowing Queen's Counsel to have priority with regard to motions, when there is not sufficient time allowed for hearing all the motions. But that is a matter which must be left to the Judges. I am quite as ready as the most ardent reformer in this House to secure a speedy and less costly administration of the law; and with regard to another subject referred to by the hon. Member opposite, I think it a very great hardship that witness cases should be suspended from day to day, and I hope some plan will be devised to prevent this. But that, again, is a matter concerning the internal arrangement of the Courts. The hon. Member for East Donegal asks whether any action is to be taken on the Report made in 1885 as to the accumulation of arrears in the Court of Chancery, and the impossibility, as pointed out in that Report, of the present staff of Judges dealing with the current business and that which remains for adjudication. The most obvious comment made on that Report in several quarters has been that a new Judge should be appointed in the Chancery Division; and I, for one, agree in that proposal. I think it would be a great benefit to the public, and I am sure that an increase of judicial power does not always mean increased public burden. But the question of increasing the judicial staff is one which excites mingled feelings among Members of this House, and some opposition would probably be made to a proposal that a new Judge should be appointed in the Chancery Division. With regard to the Long Vacation, I do not desire to express any personal feeling on that subject, but I may say that it is a long time since I looked on the Vacation as representing anything like half a year; and when the hon. and learned Member for the Birr Division of King's County says that the Profession works for half of the year and amuses itself for the rest, this is, I think, an ideal view only to be explained by that same lack of professional experience with accounts of which the hon. and learned

    1411
    Gentlemen sometimes entertains the House.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman agree to the appointment of another Judge in the Court of Chancery?
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I can only say that the subject has been under consideration. I cannot say what conclusion has been arrived at; but, undoubtedly, the pressure of the hon. Gentleman in this matter will have the effect of preventing the subject being lost sight of.
    MR. KIMBER: I agree that the question of the arrangements of the Courts is one for which we cannot hold the Government responsible, and that it is scarcely the proper subject to occupy the time of the Committee; but there is another matter which we ought to consider, and that is the accessibility of the avenues to the Courts of Justice. I speak with an experience of 30 years, and I say that the avenues to the Courts of Justice are not as open to the public as they ought to be. Under the present system a man cannot approach the High Court of Justice in this country in any of its Divisions unless he does so in person or employs a counsel and solicitor. However insignificant the cause may be; however impecunious may be the client, he is bound to employ a solicitor and counsel. It is monstrous that the road to justice should be blocked in this way, and, as a member of the Legal Profession, I say that, so far from standing in the way of the clients in this respect, we should hail with pleasure any reform which would enable Her Majesty's subjects to get access to the High Courts of Justice. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General whether Her Majesty's Government will not take into consideration some plan such as has been suggested in former years for dealing with this question; and whether in the course of the Recess, and with a view to legislation in a future Session, they will not consider how far it is practicable to enable suitors to appear in the High Court of Justice either in person, or by barrister or solicitor without, as at present, being compelled to employ both, no matter at what expense? A solicitor even of 50 years' experience is not allowed to have audience of the Court. He can got audience if he employs a youth fresh from the University, who has just been called to the Bar, and
    1412
    while he is addressing the Court the solicitor must sit by and hear the result. I say that this question is one that ought to be looked at from the point of view of Her Majesty's suitors, and not from the point of view of what are the rights of solicitors and members of the Bar. Neither of them have any rights in such cases, as against the right of Her Majesty's suitors to be heard as I quickly and as inexpensively as can be arranged.
    SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I deprecate the Committee entering into a discussion on this subject, which involves one of the most difficult questions that can be discussed—namely, the relations of the two branches of the Profession. The hon. Member for Wandsworth (Mr. Kimber) admits that an individual may come before the Court in person; and therefore the only question is whether, in the event of his not doing this, the old practice should be continued of appearing by counsel and solicitor, or whether he should be able to go into Court with either counsel or solicitor only. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a very difficult question. It would include are-arrangement of the relations between the two branches of the Profession, because privileges could not be extended to one class without being extended to the other. I trust that the hon. Member, for these reasons, will not press the point on the present occasion.
    MR. HANBURY: I am convinced that in this matter the public do not care two pins for the two branches of the Profession; their object is to get cheap justice. It is all very well to say that the man can go into Court and argue his own case; but that is not what is wanted. I consider that there should be some arrangement by which the public could go into Court and get the cheap justice which is now denied them.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am certain that we shall never get any justice in this matter while lawyers are allowed to say one word on the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke) has said that law in England is cheaper than in any other country; but I have had the privilege, which the hon. and learned Solicitor General has not had, of being sued not only in this country, but in America, in Germany, and in France, and I can say that in

    1413
    every one of the latter countries the law was better and more cheaply administered than it is in England. I repeat that as long as these arrangements are left to barristers and to Judges who have been barristers, it is not likely that they will ever accept partners in their own loot. We know that there are hundreds of minor causes in which solicitors could appear with advantage to their clients. Of course, in important cases the barrister would have to be engaged, and that is what is done in America; but for small cases it appears to mo, setting aside the question between barristers and solicitors, which I will leave them to arrange between themselves, that it would be an immense advantage to the community if the proposal of the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Mr. Kimber) were carried out.
    MR. KIMBER: I do not think that we should find it impossible to make the arrangement which I advocate. We are an old country, and are supposed to have the best talent in the world for dealing with these subjects. Our Colonies are young, and have not the same experience as we have, and yet they have been able to do what I propose. They have passed a law which leaves the matter of representation in Court to the natural requirements of the case. It is left to the client to say whether he will have a barrister or a solicitor to represent him. I speak now for my Profession, and I say again that a client should be allowed to employ either a barrister or lawyer to represent him. I remember a case in which two counsel were employed; the senior counsel laid down a certain line on which the case should be conducted, the junior was of a different view; he got up and lost the case by proceeding on a line opposed to that of the senior counsel and the solicitor who was in Court.
    MR. CONYBEARE: My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has inveighed against us as barristers and lawyers. I have the honour to be a member of the Profession; and with regard to the point taken up by the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Mr. Kimber), I say that the position of that hon. Member and myself in this matter, he belonging to one branch of the Profession and I to the other, ought to be
    1414
    sufficient to convince the hon. Member for Northampton that both barristers and lawyers can take an impartial view of a question of this kind. I rise now in order to state my emphatic opinion that the two branches of the Profession ought to stand in the same position. Of course, we know that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wandsworth will not find favour with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General; as long as the system of refreshers is in practice his view is one which Queen's Counsel will always take. But the result of the present practice is that law and justice are the privilege of the rich as against the poor; the poor man is prevented getting his rights, simply because, in contravention of the provisions of Magna Charta, he cannot have justice brought to his door. And against the present system, in common with my hon. Friends, I shall seize every opportunity of protesting until that system is altered. I wish to record my conviction that it is not always the best plan for a client to go to men at the top of the tree. They, as a rule, know nothing of the facts when they come into Court; they leave the work to be done by their devils, and I have known cases in which men at the top of the Profession have shown the most barefaced ignorance of the case they were engaged in.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (3.) £8,680, to complete the sum for the Wreck Commission.
    MR. TUITE: I wish to point out that many of the Wreck Commissioners Courts are composed of men who have no technical knowledge of the cases they have to decide; and Mr. Rothery has stated, with regard to the local Courts, that he is disposed to consider them "unsatisfactory and open to all the objections which have been urged against them." I do not think it can be denied that the manner in which the Courts are conducted is in many cases most objectionable, and it has occurred in some cases that the President has been an interested party—that is to say, connected with shipowning. I think that these matters should not be left to the local magistrates, but that competent naval officers should be sent to conduct the inquiries. With regard to the jurisdiction of the Courts, it is very objectionable that they have not more

    1415
    power over the owners of vessels than at present. I think, besides the fines they can now inflict, the Courts should have power to compensate the relatives of those who lose their lives by reason of the negligence, and I may say in some cases the premeditation, of shipowners—because it is well known that unseaworthy ships are sent to sea as a speculation by the owners, and when they go down there is no redress whatever. I think Mr. Rothery's recommendations on this subject are very valuable. He says—
    "So strongly do I feel on this point that I have lately declined to make any order condemning owners in costs, lest it should he used as an argument to relieve them from the consequences attaching to their conduct."
    And he says—
    "No doubt, the law could preclude the owner from recovering anything if he sends his ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition."
    The underwriters may be safely trusted to take care of themselves in those matters; but it is the poor seaman and the relatives of those drowned who deserve our sympathies, because they are men who, so to speak, are here to-day and gone to-morrow, and their chances of enforcing any claim against the owner of an unseaworthy ship is out of the question. Mr. Rothery recommends that the Court should have power to give compensation in the case of these unfortunate men. I have watched the evidence given before the Committee inquiring into the question of loss of life at sea with the greatest possible interest. The Report of that Committee has not yet come to hand; but I take this opportunity of asking whether the Government have any intention of bringing forward legislation at a future time for the purpose of affording redress to seamen who go to sea in unseaworthy ships, and whether they intend to give power to the Court to punish those who send ships to sea in an unseaworthy condition?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Westmeath, that the magistrates who conduct these inquiries are interested parties, I should certainly be glad if he can give us cases in proof, because so far as we know there is no foundation whatever for the statement. The magistrate in these cases is stipendiary, and is assisted by
    1416
    assessors and officers of the Navy or Merchant Service, and he is there to deal only with the law and facts of the case, apart from the points on which he may be advised by those who assist him. It was enacted in the Act of 1876 that these Courts were not to have power to award compensation. They are not legal tribunals, in which the rights of parties can be determined; they are simply Courts held under Statute for the purpose of investigating the causes of the loss of life at sea. There is no doubt that shipowners who send their ships to sea in an unseaworthy condition are not only liable civilly, but also to be prosecuted criminally; and the hon. Member is probably aware that there have been several cases in which persons sending ships to sea in an unseaworthy condition have been prosecuted. I do not think it would be an improvement in the law to give the Wreck Commissioners Court powers to award compensation, because frequently the proper parties are not before them, and it would be necessary to enter upon an inquiry of very wide scope in order to ascertain the facts. On the whole, I am of opinion that it would not be satisfactory to give them the powers which the hon. Member suggests.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I observe that there is a special clerk kept for particular purposes in connection with the Court. Can the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) say if there is any work worth speaking of for that clerk to do; and is he aware how long he is employed on those duties?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I cannot say that I know what amount of work has to be done by the clerk referred to; but the hon. Member for East Donegal will understand that he has to be referred to by Mr. Rothery from time to time.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this particular gentleman has been for 61 years at this work?
    MR. JACKSON: I am not aware of that; but, if so, I am glad that Mr. Rothery has the assistance of a man of such great experience.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) £350,789, to complete the sum for County Courts.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) the other night alluded to a Bill dealing with County Courts, which the Government would not proceed with on account of the opposition that it was supposed I should offer to the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in supposing that the Bill would meet with opposition from me. I should have opposed it on the ground which I now take this opportunity of stating to the Committee—namely, that there is no Department of our Public Administration which deserves more severe inquiry and more thorough reform than that of the County Courts. It would not, in my opinion, have been desirable to introduce a long Bill dealing with this question at a time which would not allow Members of this House an opportunity of suggesting reforms in connection with the County Courts, which are very much needed. I will not go into the question of those reforms at the present moment; but I desire to call the attention of the Committee and the Law Officers of the Crown to a subject that I brought before the Liberal Government when I was sitting below the Gangway opposite. At that time the Representative of the Government—the Solicitor General—admitted the grievance of which I complained, and also admitted that a remedy was necessary; but, notwithstanding that promise made four or five years ago, nothing up to the present time has been done. The Bill proposed to be introduced by the Government did not deal with this question, and by the Return issued the other day I see that the grievance was worse than before. This Establishment of the County Courts costs the country something like £500,000 a-year, and we have salaries in connection with it amounting to something like £100,000 a-year. I will give a few figures only taken from recent Returns. There are 59 County Court Circuits—that is to say, the Committee will understand that there are 59 Judges administering justice in the various County Courts. An hon. Member said something just now about 200 days being the average of work done by the Judges
    1418
    in the Superior Courts. That calculation is probably correct. If the House will pursue the calculation for a moment they will see that, after deducting 13 weeks for holidays from the 52 weeks of the year, there will remain 39 weeks or 234 working days during which the Superior Courts are engaged. Now, I do not think it is a very large demand upon gentlemen receiving such salaries as are received by the County Court Judges to ask that they should sit for the same number of days on which the Judges of the Superior Courts are occupied; and, according to the statistics, the Committee will see that the Judges of the Supreme Court sit for over 200 days in the year. But it appears by the Return for the year 1885 that of the 59 County Court Judges there are 25 who do not sit for 150 days in the year. Now, I put it to the Committee whether it is a right thing that out of these 59 Judges in receipt of salaries of £1,500 a-year, and in a country where there is great complaint with regard to the delay in the administration of justice, 25 of these Judges should only sit for the time I have mentioned? Then there is the Return for 1886, issued a week or two ago, from which I take the ease of 12 County Court Judges, and which shows that one sat for 132 days, another 131, a third 127, and so on in the following gradation—128, 121, 113, 108, 105, 99, 85; and, finally, there was one Judge who actually only sat on 76 days. Now, I certainly think that this is a question that the Government of the day, whether Liberal or Conservative, ought to take up, and with regard to which they ought to institute a searching investigation for the purpose of introducing stringent reform. They should do one of two things—either reduce the number of Circuits, or call upon the Judges for some adequate return for the salaries they are paid. It is said that in addition to the number of days on which the Judges sit there are a certain number of days on which they travel. Of course, in 1857, when the County Courts were established, the facilities for travelling were by no means as great as they are now; but, notwithstanding the present facilities, I find it stated that one of the County Court Judges calculated that it would be cheaper to pay the amount in dispute in a small cause than to incur the expense of tra-

    1419
    velling, and accordingly he paid the plaintiff's claim. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) would not thank me if I were to detain the Committee at greater length on this question, important as it is; and, therefore, I will conclude by saying that I do not ask for any expression of opinion by a Division on the question of reducing the Vote; I simply ask that the Government will take this matter into their serious consideration, in order that there may be a thorough re-adjustment of the present system, and arrangements made by which the County Court Judges may perform an adequate amount of work in the important position in which they are placed.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has raised this question, and placed the figures we have just listened to before the Committee. I have myself attempted to deal with this question, and have collected statistics with regard to it, which, however, I will not now state. I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to one point—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman would have made his case a great deal stronger if he had shown that 36 out of these 59 County Court Judges sit for less than 150 days. If you take 300 as the total number of working days in the year, it will be seen that 36 County Court Judges sat for less than one-half of the total number of working days, which is a very cogent reason in favour of a searching investigation and reform. There is an instance of the County Court at Liverpool sitting on 335 days, and that certainly does argue that those Judges who sit for 100 days, or less than 150, are shirking their duty. A great many of the County Court Judges go away for some time during the year, and leave the work of their Court to be performed by substitutes. Now, they will take any barrister that suits them to perform these important duties, and I know of many cases where what I may call serious miscarriages of justice have occurred simply because the County Court Judge has gone away and left some more or less incompetent person to take his place. There ought, therefore, to be some restriction placed upon the selection of persons who take the place of the County Court Judges where
    1420
    there is a large amount of work to be performed; but where there is a small amount of work I do not see that there is any reason for appointing substitutes at all. Again, I believe it would conduce greatly to the improvement of the calibre of the County Court Judges if they were regarded as eligible for promotion to the Higher Courts as junior Judges. In the case of the County Courts, which have most important duties to perform, and deal with causes where considerable sums are at stake, we want to have the best men that can be got to take the appointment of Judge. But, in many cases, those who take these appointments are not the best men; they are simply men who are worked out at the Bar, and have been pitchforked into these positions as a recompense for some service they have performed. If you were occasionally to select some of these men to fill the position of Puisne Judgeships in the High Court, I am certain you would offer an inducement to good men to take County Court Judgeships while they are in the prime of life, and have the power necessary to get through the amount of work that has to be done. I now wish to make some remarks with reference to the County Court Registrars. The Registrars in many of the County Courts, as all those who have the misfortune to come before them probably know, are very much more important personages than the Judges themselves, and are in the habit of brow-beating and bullying the counsel and witnesses who come before them. I mention this, not in order that their salaries may be reduced, but because it appears to me a scandal that if the Judges are supposed to be the supreme authorities in their own Courts, the Registrars should be allowed the amount of licence which, in some cases, they take upon themselves. A large amount of work is done by the Registrars of which the County Court Judges know nothing; and I say that, when you are talking about re-organization of the County Courts, it is the Registrars quite as much as the Judges who require to be looked after. Again, some of these Registrars are regular pluralists. I have received a letter, which unfortunately for the moment I have mislaid, complaining of a miscarriage of justice at Rye, in Sussex, that resulted from the Registrar of the County Court having monopolized every local

    1421
    office in the county. He is the clerk of this office and the clerk of that—a sort of octopus into whoso clutches you are sure to fall. My contention is that if the Registrars have sufficient work to do they should not be allowed to monopolize offices outside their Courts; and that if, on the other hand, they have not sufficient to do, it is an argument in favour of re-organizing the County Court system. In connection with this subject, I wish also to bring before the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General the case of a particular Registrar in the county of Cornwall. This case formed the subject of a Question put by me to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) some time ago, but to which, of course, I did not receive any satisfactory answer—I never do get a satisfactory answer from him in this House. I am sorry to trouble the Committee with the matter; but it is one of those abuses which it is always desirable to bring into the light of day, and you cannot get attention paid to the acts of officials in out-of-the-way districts unless the question is raised on occasions like this. The case I refer to is that of the High Bailiff of St. Columb Major, in the county of Cornwall, and I think we have a right to discuss his conduct on this Vote. A certain man was brought before the Bankruptcy Court; it was stated that this High Bailiff, in the performance of his duties as a public officer, had to levy an execution upon the goods of this bankrupt, and that he went to the man's shop, selected the best pair of shoes he could find there, and walked away without paying for them. It turns out that if it had not been for the statement made by the bankrupt before the Official Receiver the High Bailiff would not have paid for these boots at all. When the case came before the Lord Chief Justice at the Bodmin Assizes, he was very severe on the conduct of this High Bailiff—named Howard—and he is reported to have said—
    "That Mr. Howard did say something of the kind, and did go rather beyond the lines of an honest official, in spite of the evidence on that occasion as to his own character, must appear from what happened about the boots. It might he a small matter; but it was perfectly plain that Mr. Howard got the boots, and that if Ellis had not been examined in the Bankruptcy Court and Mr. Jenkins had not learned about them through the examination, the pair of boots would have been on Mr. Howard's feet at that moment, and would never have been
    1422
    paid for. It was perfectly plain that Mr. Jenkins found out this story about the boots, and he very properly went to Mr. Howard and said ' Pay me for those boots,' and the thing having come out, Mr. Howard, the High Bailiff, could not help paying for them. Whether that transaction redounded to his magnanimity his Lordship did not know; but one could not say that it redounded—Mr. Howard would excuse him for saying so—to his official honesty."
    Now, I put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether we ought to allow important business to be transacted by men whose official honesty has been thus stigmatized by the Lord Chief Justice himself. I bring this case particularly before the Committee, because this man is not only High Bailiff, but postmaster at the office in St. Columb Major. He occupies a double position, and I say that a man whose official honesty has thus been stigmatized by the Lord Chief Justice of England has no business, without the most searching inquiry, to be allowed to retain these two important positions. The answer that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General gave me was that he had made inquiries. But these Departmental inquiries are worthless. All that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General did say was in the nature of a direct snub to the Lord Chief Justice for going beyond his function and condemning this individual whose official conduct was not in direct issue before the Court. I do not think that was very civil on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General towards the Lord Chief Justice of England; but I am not here to teach the right hon. Gentleman manners. I am here to complain that a man. charged with official breach of trust should be allowed to retain these two posts in the face of what has been said by the Lord Chief Justice, and I claim from the right hon. Gentleman that he should take some steps to satisfy himself whether this criticism of the Lord Chief Justice was deserved or not. If it was deserved, I say that the man ought to be treated in very much the same way as other officials whose conduct has been from time to time called in question. I shall probably have again to refer to this case in connection with another Vote, unless I get some more satisfactory information upon the subject now. You cannot expect the course of justice to be pure as long as you have

    1423
    officers behaving in this way, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General will give the Committee an assurance that these abuses in connection with the County Courts will be looked into, so that justice may be done.
    MR. TOMLINSON: There is an objection to the scale of fees in County Courts which I hope will not be lost sight of. I understand that objection is taken to the hearing fees being fixed at 1s. in the pound on the amount claimed. Where the whole claim is in dispute that this might possibly be not an excessive charge; but considerable hardship is experienced where the whole sum claimed is not in dispute and where there is no defence to the action, but there may be difficulty in realizing the amount of the judgment. I hope that when the re-organization of the County Courts is under consideration the present scale of fees will not be lost sight of.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): It is, of course, impossible to overrate the importance of the subject which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) has brought before the notice of the Committee; and I may say at once that it is a case that Her Majesty's Government will carefully consider, not only with regard to the question of consolidation, but also to the question of the reform of the County Courts in the direction which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated. The question of the Judges' time is, no doubt, a difficult one; but I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the way in which that time is occupied does require to be investigated. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will not wish to do any injustice to the County Court Judges; but it is a matter which must be borne in mind that consolidation cannot be dealt with summarily, because it involves many considerations. I point out that even if consolidation were practicable in populous places it could not be carried out in places which are less populous. I quite admit that there is some ground for thinking that in some cases we do not get a sufficient economy of labour or a sufficient amount of judicial strength from the staff of County Court Judges. On the other hand, I think the right hon. Gentleman will say that we do get
    1424
    a very large amount of work out of our County Court Judges in populous places. I think there is possibly some mistake in the arithmetic of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare), because he has spoken of the Judge of the Liverpool County Court sitting on 335 days in the year. I do not see how that can be the case, unless the Court sat on Sundays—but probably there was more than one Judge engaged. Her Majesty's Government would wish to go quite as far as the hon. Gentleman in improving the County Court system—in economizing the time of the Judges, and in economizing the expenditure of the country which falls on the taxpayer to a certain small extent by reason of the way in which business is now transacted. As to the case of the deputies referred to by the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, I do not know whether he has had time to study the Consolidation Bill. He devotes his attention to so many subjects that perhaps he has not been able to master this matter as one should do who is desirous of dealing with it in a practical manner. If he had examined the Bill carefully he would have seen that it provides that the names of the deputies will be submitted to the Lord Chancellor. The Bill goes further than that, and I know it has given rise to some little remonstrance on the part of the County Court Judges, who think that in case of sudden emergency, where, for instance, they are taken with illness, they ought to be able to appoint a deputy for a week or so. I think I shall be prepared to meet that objection by some alteration in the Bill. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that the matter has not been lost sight of by the Lord Chancellor, and that it has been subsequently dealt with in the Bill. The hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall has spoken of the County Court Judges as being men worn out and pitch forked into their positions as required. Well, I have a very intimate knowledge of nearly all the County Court Judges who have been appointed during the past 10 or 15 years, and I think that with very few exceptions very little exception can be taken to those appointments. I do not think a member of our Profession ought to say—without being able to put his finger upon any appointment he refers

    1425
    to—that any one of these gentlemen ought to be described in the language which the hon. Member for the Camborne Division made use of. The only other matter the hon. Member refers to is that of a certain High Bailiff having obtained a pair of shoes, as it was alleged, under suspicious or improper circumstances. Well, whilst I perfectly agree that some questions of grievance should be considered in this House, I cannot admit that this House ought properly to be made a Court to consider whether or not a Bailiff stole a pair of shoes, or did wrong in possessing himself of them. If such a principle were admitted the House of Commons would be brought down to the level of the lowest Court in the land. If there really is a serious cause of complaint against the conduct of this High Bailiff, no doubt the Chief Justice would have brought the case to the attention of the County Court Judge or the Lord Chancellor. There may have been larceny committed, or there may have been improper conversion of the pair of shoes, and in one case the matter can be made the subject of an indictment, while in the other case those who have cause of complaint will be able to avail themselves of a civil remedy even in the County Court itself. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Gentleman that this is scarcely a matter for the House of Commons to deal with. It is certainly not a matter with regard to which I can give any pledge that the High Bailiff will be removed from his position, If the Lord Chief Justice, in summing up, considered him guilty of gross misconduct, no doubt some such representation will be made in the proper quarter and punishment will be meted out.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I know that that is a very trivial matter, and I was very reluctant to bring it forward; but having asked a Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman on one occasion with regard to this subject, and having asked a Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General with regard to the conduct of this functionary—as be is subject to both those Departments—and having failed to get a satisfactory answer, I thought myself justified in bringing the matter forward.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: The hon. Member is quite wrong in his recollection upon this subject. He certainly
    1426
    did not bring the conduct of this official under my notice.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Then I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. I brought it under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I say the proper remedy, whether the person who is alleged to have committed a fault is a Registrar or Bailiff or anyone else connected with the County Court, if he, in the course of his official duties, misbehaves himself and the circumstance is brought to the knowledge of any one of Her Majesty's Judges, the Judge would of course, if he thought the circumstances of the case called for it, communicate with the Lord Chancellor, or with whoever possessed authority over the individual. But I do not know that this subject is worthy of occupying so much time as has been expended upon it by the hon. Member. I trust he will understand that I do not wish in any way to complain of his exorcising a certain amount of industry in connection with these matters; but I think it will be seen that this point is one which is hardly worthy of lengthened discussion. I hope I have answered the points raised by the hon. Member. As to the question of fees, I believe that the scale has been recently considered, and I rather think that some relief has been afforded in the direction pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson).
    MR. TOMLINSON: I do not think the point I referred to has been considered.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I trust the Committee will now be allowed to take this Vote.
    Vote agreed to.
    (5.) £1,442, to complete the sum for Land Registry.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I do not think that this is a Vote which ought to be submitted to the Committee at all year after year as it is submitted to us. There is not sufficient work in the Registry Office to justify the employment of more than one-third of the existing clerks. Now, Sir, there has been laid upon the Table of the House in the present Session a Return of a number of estates placed on the register on the first registra-

    1427
    tion. The number of estates placed on the register in the year 1886 was two. There have been other registrations in the Office on transfer or under wills, and there have been entries made in the Office by way of registration in connection with mortgages and charges; but taking every kind of entry which has been made on the register, whether first registration or any other description, the total number of dealings with estates with which this Office has been concerned during the past 12 months is 197. Now, in order to deal with those matters—scarcely one on every second day throughout the year—there is a staff consisting of a Vice Registrar at a salary of £1,500 a-year, a chief clerk at a salary of £400 a-year, two other clerks, one at £350 a-year and the other at £250 a-year, besides further assistants for copying. There used to be a Registrar, but that Office has been got rid of as an altogether ornamental sinecure. The Vice Registrar now does the work of the Registrar. The chief clerk is an experienced solicitor—he is perfectly competent to deal with, all the matters with which the Office has concern. He is perfectly competent to investigate titles or any other business which it is necessary to have done in the Land Registry, and seeing that there is only one case registered every two days it is very difficult to see how work can be found for more than the man who is now chief clerk, and, say, one clerk to assist him; while under these circumstances it is not reasonable and right that the Government should come and ask for £2,930 this year for salaries. The amount of work done in the Office may be gauged by the fact that whereas in other offices connected with legal business the fees very much, exceed the amount of the salaries, in this Office, while the salaries amount to £2,900, the fees come to only £800 in the year. The whole thing is a hopeless failure. It was started by a very clever Lord Chancellor in the year 1862, who managed to put some of his own relatives into the posts he created, and the history of the whole office is a story of jobbery. The whole staff consists of men who, unlike the rest of persons in the Civil Service, have never passed a Civil Service examination at all. The only person mentioned in connection with this Department as having passed a Civil Service
    1428
    examination is not either the Vice Registrar, or the chief clerk, or the second clerk, or the third clerk, but the housekeeper. You require a Civil Service examination to be passed by the housekeeper, whilst all the rest of the officials are admitted without. And why? Because it was a matter of patronage. But it remains a job to this day, and though we might be disposed to allow a sum of £300 to be taken for salaries, which would be abundantly sufficient for the purpose, seeing that the fees amount to £800,it certainly does appear to me that this Vote is at least £2,100 in excess of what thought to be. I make no doubt that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would be very willing to reduce the Vote if he could; but he is met with the difficulty that always arises in these cases— namely, "You cannot get rid of these people because they have vested interests." The same bogey of vested interests which causes the public to be plundered in so many Departments of the Administration is here in full force. But why should you continue to pay these men salaries which it is not necessary to pay them, simply because through not having passed Civil Service examinations you will have some difficulty in transferring them to other places? I would submit that it is for the interest of the Treasury, in the interests of economy, and in discharge of their plain office and function, to see whether they cannot transfer some of those men to certain other Departments of the State where their services may be utilized, or, if they cannot do that, then to get rid of those people and pension them. There is no real justification for continuing to pay salaries to men whom you have to admit you cannot properly employ.
    MR. NOLAN: I only differ from my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) in this, he is of opinion that some salaries ought to be retained, whilst I think that they ought to be abolished altogether. I have taken the trouble to glance over the history of this office, and I find that it was first established in the year 1862, and that from that time up to within five or six years ago it seems to have existed without attracting very much attention in Committee in this House. [Sir GEORGE BALFOUR: There was notice taken of it.] The hon. and gallant

    1429
    Member says that there was some notice taken of it by the Committee of this House. Well, very little notice was taken of it, at any rate by the Treasury. Hon. Members by referring to Hansard in 1885 will see that Mr. Arthur Arnold —the then Member for Salford—said—
    "Within the past two half-years the number of new estates registered in this Office had teen six—two in one half and four in the other."—(3 Hansard, [299] 745.)
    No notice seems to have been taken of this statement made by Mr. Arthur Arnold, although I find that some very strong language was used by this Gentleman in speaking about the Office. The office of Registrar became vacant on the 23rd January, 1886, and then it was found that the duties which he was supposed to have discharged during his 25 years of office could be discharged by the Vice Registrar, and that, translated into English, meant that the heavily burdened taxpayers of this country paid to the late Registrar the sum of £60,000 for practically doing nothing at all. Well, in February, 1886, I find that the late Attorney General—Sir Charles Russell—in speaking of this Registry Office, said—
    "I speak the opinion of the Profession, when I say that from beginning to end these two Acts"—
    that is to say, the Act of 1862 and the Act of 1875—
    "were signal failures. … that they have done little better than to establish one or two not unimportant sinecures."—(3 Hansard, [302] 1004.)
    And Mr. T. H. Bolton—the then Member for North St. Paucras—said—
    "I venture to say, as a man having some little knowledge of this Land Registry Office, that if there is one complete failure in connection with legal reform it is in connection with this Office."—[Ibid. 1005.)
    In view of these facts, I am exceedingly surprised to find that no attempt has been made to effect anything in the shape of reform. I find that it is the opinion of legal gentlemen, well acquainted with the administration of affairs in connection with this and other offices, that without any inconvenience whatever to the public the work which is done by the Land Registry Office might be done fairly well in the Public Record Office at, perhaps, slightly additional cost to that Office; and owing to these circumstances, I shall, if no ex-
    1430
    planation be given, feel it my duty, in the interests of the taxpayers, to move the reduction of this Vote by the total amount.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) will not think it necessary to oppose this Vote, and will not bring the question he has raised to a Division. I sympathize to a great extent with everything which the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. Nolan) has said. I have never in this House or anywhere else defended the Land Registry in regard to the manner in which it was originally established, or in regard to the manner in which it has been carried on. I would wish to say one word in justification of the action of the present Government in the matter. The Committee will, no doubt, remember that the Office of Registrar fell vacant during the first time Lord Salisbury was in Office in 1886, and at once Her Majesty's Government determined that they would not renew the office, and brought in a Bill and passed if through the House, saving the country £2,500 or £1,500 a-year—I think £2,500. I mention that fact not as having been done by one Government or the other, but as showing that Her Majesty's present Government are fully alive to the desirability of putting a stop to this office. When the hon. Gentleman opposite suggested the transfer of the work of this office to the Public Record Office, the hon. Gentleman loses sight of the real condition of the matter, because there are on the Register about 3,000 titles at the present time, and about as many mortgages and charges. There were in the year 1886, I believe, 700 cases in which reference had to be made to different titles. With regard to the fees the hon. Member refers to, £815 is undoubtedly a very small amount; but he will probably remember that in consequence of the way in which the work of this office has hung fire, the fees have been put very low for the purpose of attracting work to it. It is doubtful whether it would be wise to transfer work of this nature from the hands of those who are thoroughly familiar with it, having been engaged upon it for some years, and having necessarily acquired knowledge enabling them to

    1431
    deal with such matters to another department. But there is another reason why no reduction should be made. The Committee is aware that the whole subject is going to be dealt with in a kindred Bill—namely, the Land Transfer Bill of the Lord Chancellor; and if that Bill passes, which I hope it will, there will be necessity for the appointment of an increased staff. It certainly would not be wise to get rid of this small office for a year or two, when the knowledge and experience it has acquired in the present Land Registry Office would be so useful and valuable in connection with the proposed new Registry. I mention these two points together as showing that the Government are desirous of dealing with the matter. They do not wish to lose the services of men who have experience in the matter of Land Registry, and who will be useful when we come to deal with an enlarged scheme. I agree that in this matter the country has not had value for its money, and I trust that having regard to the reduction which has been made in the office in the past, and the almost immediate prospect of the services of the officials in the office being rendered useful in the future, that hon. Members will be satisfied this evening by drawing the attention of the Committee to this subject, and will not think it necessary to oppose the Vote.
    MR. NOLAN: With reference to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman just now that the fees were put to a low figure for the purpose of attracting business, I should like to ask him whether he has noticed the case quoted by the late Member for North St. Pancras—Mr. T. H. Bolton—on March 1st, 1886, when he stated that he knew of some land being purchased, the total value of which was £2,900, on which the cost of completing the purchase was £56, and on which the registration fees—that is to say, the fees charged by the Land Registry Office, amounted to £104 12 s. 7d., making the total cost of transferring £2,900 worth of property £180 12 s. 7d. If some change has been made in the scale of fees charged by the Land Registry Office since then, of course the Land Registry Office ought to get the benefit of it in the estimation of the public; but I think that so long as they charge such large fees as those the country has a right to
    1432
    demand the abolition of the Office altogether.
    SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: With reference to the case the hon. Member refers to, I do not remember now the exact circumstances; but I recollect having my attention drawn to it last year by the hon. Gentleman whose name has been mentioned. I think, if I remember rightly, the individual fees were small, but that the question of title was such that a great many official documents had to pass through the Registry. In that way, probably, the large amount of expenditure may be accounted for. I quite agree that, where the fees amount to over £100 in the case of the registration of apiece of property, the sum is much too high. If the hon. Member wishes it, I will go through the matter again; but I rather think that some such explanation as that which I now offer is to be given to account for the high fees referred to.
    Vote agreed to.
    (6.) £20,370, to complete the sum for Revising Barristers, England.
    (7.) £8,689, to complete the sum for Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
    MR. FLYNN: I do not intend to detain the Committee very long upon this Vote. I simply rise for the purpose of asking the question—of asking whether the Government will take into consideration now, or, if possible, in the future, some scheme by which the cost of the Police Courts in Sheerness shall be defrayed by the locality in which these Courts are situated, and not out of the Consolidated Fund or by Vote in this House? In Cork, Sir, and in Belfast, and all the principal cities in Ireland, and in England also, the expenses of all these Police Courts are defrayed entirely out of the fines and other sources of revenue of the Courts themselves. If those sources of income are not sufficient the expenses are defrayed out of the local rates. I think it is time that the attention of the Committee were called to this matter. I may be met by the statement that this question I am now raising is not a very big one, and that it will be dealt with under the Local Government scheme which is about to be brought forward. That may be very true. This matter may be dealt with when the reform of the Local Govern-

    1433
    ment of London is taken in hand; but, at the same time, I must remark that it ought not to be difficult to frame some scheme by which the fines and charges raised in the Police Courts of London might be applied to defraying their own expenses. More particularly in regard to the Police Court in Sheerness, I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the figures, which show a very anomalous condition of things. They show that the clerk of the Police Court at Sheerness receives a salary of £300 a-year; that he also receives a commission of 5 per cent as Treasurer to the County of Kent, and High Bailiff; and that he also receives a salary as Registrar of the County Court. In addition to all this he is clerk to the Chatham and Dover Board. The point I wish to bring before the Committee will seem very clear to hon. Members when I point out that this clerk to the Police Court at Sheerness is clerk to the Sheerness County Court, and receives a salary in that capacity. I should like to have some explanation as to what claim Sheerness has to an exceptional position in this matter as compared with other portions of the Kingdom. In Ireland we have a Vote for the County Courts; but, so far as the local Police Courts go, they are entirely managed out of the local rates by fines and stamps and. other charges, consisting of summonses, and so on. I should like to ask for some explanation on this point.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): The hon. Member has very correctly said that the question of the incidence of the charge for the Metropolitan Police Courts is a part of another and a much larger question. There is involved in it the question of the delimitation and determination of the rating area. Perhaps he is aware that the area of the Metropolitan Police is not co-extensive with the area of the Metropolitan Police Courts, nor is that area co-extensive with that of the Metropolis Management Act, under which the Metropolitan Board of Works acts. It is obvious that any reconsideration of this subject might form part of the general scheme of Metropolitan Government with regard to which, no doubt, the Government have pledged themselves to take action at some future
    1434
    time; but it is not, perhaps, for me to express an opinion as to whether, or to what extent, the charge for police should become a local charge. No doubt it becomes a very difficult matter to decide, when you take into consideration the extent and quality of the accommodation afforded to the population of the Metropolis; and it becomes difficult to decide whether too much or too little accommodation exists, owing to the absence of the usual check that is provided where the ratepayers have to provide the accommodation themselves. In the light of that fact this question must be considered. As to the particular official at Sheerness who receives these additional allowances, no doubt the facts are as the hon. Member has stated; but the whole arrangements in connection with the Sheerness Police Court are similar to those in connection with the county tribunals. The hon. Member will see this if he compares the duties of the clerk of the Police Court with those to be discharged in connection with the county tribunals. His position and his duties are the same; the Government has no claim on his whole time; and he may hold other local offices in addition to his appointment.
    Vote agreed to.
    (8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £275,620, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which, will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Horse Patrol and Thames Police, and for the Salaries of the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioners, and Receiver."
    MR. PICKERSGILL: In rising to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,500, the salary of the Chief Commissioner of Police, I have to regret that it should be necessary to bring the question of the London police at all before the notice of this Committee, because it is really not an Imperial question, but a local or a municipal question. If London had a municipality, as the other large towns of the country have, and if the police of London were under the control of a Watch Committee as they are in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and other provincial towns, the course I propose to take would not only be unnecessary, but would be altogether unjustifiable.

    1435
    But, Sir, there is a complete difference between the position of the London ratepayers with regard to the police and the position of the ratepayers of other towns—a difference which, perhaps, I may best illustrate by a recent incident. In other large towns of the country the police, as I have said, are under the control of the Watch Committee; and in the majority of cases, as I am informed, the police are directed by the Watch. Committee to look after disorderly houses, and of course they are bound to carry out the instructions of their masters. Well, Sir, for 20 years— at least, so we were informed the other day—the Metropolitan Police have also discharged this duty of watching disorderly houses, and I believe they have performed that duty very much to the satisfaction of the Local Authorities. But what do we find? Why we find that by a recent order—by a stroke of the pen—Sir Charles Warren has forbidden the police to continue this duty, and it is notorious that the Local Authorities of the Metropolis are justly indignant. One Local Authority has already interviewed the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on the subject, and another Local Authority, in my own neighbourhood, is about to do so. I adduce this case simply as an illustration to show the position in which the London ratepayers are; to show that this Committee and this House constitute the only Court of Appeal which we have on police matters against Scotland Yard and the Home Office, and therefore I hope that I shall receive a patient and even a favourable hearing from hon. Members who represent country towns, if there are any now in this very thin House whilst I make a statement which, with every desire and every effort to compress, will, I am afraid, be a little long. I should like to say that my interest in this subject did not commence with a recent notorious case. Long before the arrest of Miss Cass, which has aroused public attention to the conduct of the police, I had determined to draw attention to the subject in this Committee. I am glad, however, that recent events have, to a considerable extent, stirred up the mind of the public upon the question. I saw, Sir, in a newspaper of last Saturday an article which is based on a statement that "a dead set is being made against
    1436
    the Metropolitan Police." Now, so far as I can make out, the only basis of fact upon which that statement rests is that during the last few weeks we have unfortunately had a very large number of cases brought before the public in the Police Courts in this Metropolis in which it has been demonstrated that police constables have given false evidence. But, Sir, if the use of the expression "dead set" is applicable at all, it is obvious that it is the police who are themselves making a dead set upon the public. However, if there is any disposition in any quarter to make a "dead set" upon the Metropolitan Police or to bear unfairly upon them, for my own part I wish to separate myself entirely from that course of proceeding, and to condemn it most emphatically. I shall have reason presently to say something unpleasant about the police; but in the first place I desire, in the warmest and most grateful manner, to bear my testimony to the highly excellent qualities which the Metropolitan Police possess. Their good humour and civility are proverbial. It is recognized by us who are natives, and it is remarked upon by Americans and Continentals who visit us; and I should also like to say a special word in recognition of the courage of the Metropolitan Police. We have quite recently had many signal examples of courage on the part of the police—courage often displayed in very unequal, and I think I might say very cruel contests—unequal contests between the baton of the policeman and the revolver of the burglar. And I say that those instances of which we have had many do honour to the men, and reflect credit upon the Force to which they belong. Now, I have studied this question from two sides. In the first place, with regard to the grievances of the Force itself, the police have many grievances, and I have received many communications from them; and so far is it from the truth that I am making or am regarded by them as making a "dead set" upon them, I believe they look upon me as their very best friend; and with regard to the grievances to which I have alluded, I shall certainly spare no effort, as far as my humble influence extends, to get them removed. The second aspect of this question is that which concerns relations between the police and the public, which in one

    1437
    aspect to which I wish as briefly as possible to refer is not satisfactory. There is one general charge brought against the Metropolitan Police, and I am afraid it is well founded, and it is this—that they do not strictly regard the obligations of truth when a little hard swearing, or, for the matter of that, a good deal of hard swearing is necessary in order to corroborate or to protect a fellow-constable; or, as they perhaps would prefer to put it, "to maintain the credit of the Force." Now I have noticed a very significant difference in the attitude of the police themselves towards this charge which they call proper loyalty to the Force, and the charge of black-mailing of which we have heard a good deal in this House lately. If in conversation you bring a general charge of black-mailing against the police and a police constable happens to be present, he will indignantly deny the charge; but if in a company in which a police constable happens to be present you substantially bring the charge which I am now putting before the Committee against the Force, it is true that a police constable may endeavour to qualify the charge, but he will not directly and indignantly deny it. And I think that the reason is not very far to seek, because this characteristic, mischievous as it is, has what we might almost call a generous basis. It originates, no doubt, in esprit de corps. But, encouraged and supported as I shall show it is by the system which has prevailed in Scotland Yard and which still prevails there, this has grown into a monstrous vice which must be ruthlessly excised, or the liberties of the people of London, and especially of the poorer and humbler classes in this City in whom, from my position, I am more particularly interested—I say that the liberties of the poorer and humbler classes will every day be jeopardized. Then with this exception—for which I blame not so much the men themselves as the system which has prevailed at headquarters—with this exception, I think the police conduct themselves in every respect most admirably. For this exception, I say, I blame not the men, but the system, and the staff at headquarters. Now, of course, for the system Sir Charles Warren must be held to be responsible. He has now been in office some 18 months; he has got, I think I may say,
    1438
    fairly into the saddle; and it is but reasonable to move to reduce his salary as a mode of protesting against this system. But, Sir, in the second place, I shall allude to some administrative acts for which Sir Charles Warren is more directly and immediately responsible. I cannot forget that it is not so long ago when an unfortunate mistake having been made Lieutenant Colonel Henderson received a very short shrift, and if the expectations which we all—and I not the least—had formed of Sir Charles Warren have been disappointed, I really cannot see why we should extend to him a more merciful consideration than was extended to the gallant gentleman who preceded him. Now, Sir, my difficulty has been to compress the vast body of material which has come into my hands into a reasonable compass. I shall not put before the Committee tonight a single piece of tittle-tattle or hearsay evidence. Every statement which I shall make shall rest either on sworn testimony or upon the admissions of Scotland Yard itself. Now I think one of the most typical cases which could possibly be brought forward to illustrate the system of Scotland Yard is the case of Miss Parton, of which the House has already heard something; and I adduce the case of Miss Parton, and I propose to go into it at some little length, because to my mind it shows most distinctly that the settled policy of Scotland Yard is to fob off the complaints which the public make against the police, however serious and however well-founded those complaints may be. I hold in my hand two statutory declarations, one by Miss Parton, who was assaulted by the police, and the other by her sister, who accompanied her on the occasion of the assault. These statutory declarations have been prepared at the instance of the Society for the Protection of Women and Children. Mr. Bridge thought proper to condemn the interference of the Society for the Protection of Women and Children. [Mr. MATTHEWS dissented.] I see the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Home Secretary shakes his head; but I think I am better versed in the facts of this case than he is, and I do most distinctly assert that Mr. Bridge said that this was not a case which the Society for the Protection of Women and Children ought to have taken up.

    1439
    Now, from the first statutory declaration I will only read a few lines at present. Miss Rosa Maud Parton, of 58, George's Road, Holloway, said—
    "On Thursday, the l6th day of June, 1837, I was at Clerkenwell Police Court as witness in a case of wilful damage. That I was outside the Court in the lobby against the warrant officer's door, and when the case was called on, was about entering the Court, when Police Constable Butler, 'G' Division, who was letting me into the Court, lifted up his fist and gave me three blows across the chest, saying—'Get out of my way; I did not call you.' The constable gave me three distinct blows in quick succession. That I nearly fainted in consequence of the violence of the blows, which made a bruise upon my chest, and which broke the pearls in a gold locket that I was wearing."
    As to the nature of the blow, there is the clearest evidence that was ever given in any Court of Law in evidence which is not traversed. There is the sworn evidence of the medical gentleman from Holloway, who said he had examined Miss Parton, and found on her breast a large bruise; that her breast was badly swollen, and that a push would not have produced what he saw; but that she must have received a blow. So much, then, for the character of the blow. As I say, that evidence of the medical man was not traversed in any way by the defence. Well, Sir, this occurred on the 16th of June. On the 20th June Miss Parton made a formal complaint to the Chief Commissioner of Police in a letter reciting the facts which. I have laid before the Committee. Well, on the 1st of July the following reply was received from the Chief Commissioner. He states that—
    "He has investigated the matter, and, acting in accordance with the instructions of the Secretary of State, has to inform you that your proper course is to prefer a charge before a magistrate, the Superintendent of the Division will then arrange for the attendance of the constable complained of to answer for his conduct on the occasion in question."
    Now, both the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—whom I am glad to see opposite—and the Chief Commissioner must have known perfectly well that the application for a summons for this assault in the Clerkenwell Police Court would, in the ordinary course, have to be made before one of the magistrates who usually attend the Clerkenwell Police Court. It is clearly, therefore, relevant now to the issue to put before the Committee the statement of facts as to the treatment which Miss
    1440
    Parton had already received at the Clerkenwell Police Court, and for that purpose I will read from the statutory declaration of Miss Parton's sister. After referring to what had brought her there, Serena Parton said—
    "About 3.30, the Constable Butler in charge of the Court, called—'Parton and Smith.' We went forward for the purpose of entering the Court, when Butler struck my sister three violent blows on the chest, saying—'I did not call you: get out of my way.' He afterwards beckoned to someone else, took them into the Court, and shut the door. Another constable then went into the Court another way, and came and opened the door, which had been shut, and asked us to come in, which we did. When the case which was being heard was ended, I went up to the magistrate and said—'Will your Worship kindly hear my case now, as I could not get into Court before.' He said—'Why were yon not here when your name was called I heard it called myself." I said—'Your Worship, I was not allowed to enter the Court when my name was called.' He said—'Oh, stuff and nonsense!' I then said—'The constable in charge of the door called us, and then would not allow us to enter, and he has assaulted my sister—he hit her three times in the chest, and has hurt her very much—she is hove, and will tell you.' He said—'The constable assaulted her! Don't tell me a parcel of lies; I don't believe a word you say; you were all in the pothouse over the way drinking.' I said—'We have not left the waiting room of the Court, and there is the constable (our witness) who is with us; you can ask him. He saw the officer assault my sister.' Mr. Barstow then said—'Don't tell me lies.'"
    I may say that on the hearing, when the assault was committed, the Misses Parton went over to a solicitor who practises in the Clerkenwell Police Court, and desired him to take out a summons against Police Constable Butler. That solicitor, whose name I shall be prepared to give to the Committee, if the Committee desires to have it, distinctly declined to take up the case because he said it was no use going against the police before the magistrates of that Court. Well, Sir, at this stage of the case, some of her friends advised Miss Parton to submit the facts of the statement I have already given to the Society for the Protection of Women and Children. She did so, and that Society took up the case at once, and with regard to their action in the matter I venture to differ from the opinion which was formed of the matter by Mr. Bridge. I venture to think that the Society in question is a useful Society, and I venture to think that it never did a day's work which better or more properly

    1441
    deserved the gratitude of the public than when it took up and has been the means of introducing to the notice of the House this scandalous assault on Miss Parton. On the 7th July the Society's solicitors, Messrs. Alsop and Co., wrote to the Chief Commissioner of Police. After some formal matter, which I need not read, they say—
    "We have also to ask that the Home Secretary's permission be obtained for the summons being heard at Bow Street, and not at the Clerkenwell Police Court, where Butler is employed as warrant officer, because, for various reasons, which need not now be stated, it is felt that the complainant would be very much hampered, and that there would not be so impartial an investigation as at a Court where they have no connection with Butler. We may mention that this is the rule in all County Court proceedings against any of its officers; they are always transferred to another Court to be heard and disposed of."
    That was an application to the Chief Commissioner to procure a transfer of the summons. Well, the Chief Commissioner replied to that on the 11th July, as follows:—
    "As regards the transfer of the case to Bow Street Police Court, the Commissioner has to advise that your application for this purpose should be made to the magistrate concerned, as it is not a matter with which the Commissioner can deal."
    [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) says "Hear, hear!" I rather think he was not in the House when I commenced my statement: but certainly I am rather surprised, knowing the candid mind which he usually displays, that he should say "Hear, hear" to a letter of this kind, which requested Miss Parton to make her application to Mr. Barstow, by whom she had been grossly insulted. In respect of this letter, a fresh application was made for the transfer this time to the Home Secretary, in the following terms—and I will read a portion of the letter addressed by Messrs. Alsop and Co. to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary:—
    "Inasmuch as the defendant is what is termed ' a servant of the magistrates ' at the Clerkenwell Police Court, we have to ask that we may be at liberty to take out the summons at the Chief Police Court—namely, Bow Street, where the defendant is unknown, and where the utmost impartiality can be relied on. We may mention that in all cases in the County Courts, where any of the officers are complained of, the proceedings can betaken in an adjoining Court, the object being to prevent any influence being at work to in any way affect the decision
    1442
    to be given; and inasmuch as the magistrates at the Police Courts have jurisdiction over the whole Metropolis, we respectfully submit that there is a good and valid reason why the matter should be proceeded with at Bow Street. We may, perhaps, be pardoned, observing that the complainant applied to a local solicitor to ask the magistrate at Clerkenwell to grant a summons against the warrant officer; and the local solicitor replied it would be of no use, and a waste of time, as the defendant was an officer of the Court, and the magistrate would decide in his favour; and as there should not be even a suspicion that justice is not quite pure, we humbly submit that our application should be acceded to."
    Well, in reply to that letter the application was granted, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, on the 15th July, writing—
    "On a personal application being made by the complainant to-morrow to the sitting magistrate at Bow Street, a summons against this officer will be granted."
    Well, a summons was granted by Mr. Bridge, and before him, without Miss Parton's consent, the summons was withdrawn. Thus we see that there had been a very great expenditure, both of time and money, on the part of Miss Parton and those who had interested themselves on her behalf, and that no redress whatever had been obtained. Police Constable Butler, who had assaulted Miss Parton, was left in the discharge of his very important and very responsible duties at the Clerkenwell Police Court; and, as I say, under pressure from the magistrate, the charge was ultimately withdrawn. I cannot help, at this point, contrasting the result in this case, where a policeman had assaulted a member of the public, with some other cases which have recently attracted the attention of the public, in which members of the public have been charged with assaults upon the police. I cannot help contrasting the withdrawal of the charge against Police Constable Butler, and his escaping, so far, absolutely scot free, with the sentence of six months' imprisonment passed on Mr. Williams, and the sentence of two months' imprisonment, which, in spite of all representations——
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the hon. Gentleman is diverging at great length, right and left. He must confine his attention to the conduct of the police and of the Chief Commissioner of Police. He is now entering into the conduct of certain magistrates.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I apologize for the inadvertence; but I think it has only been during the last two or three minutes. I have been endeavouring to keep as closely as possible to the conduct of the police, though it is true the conduct of the magistrates is, to a certain extent, inevitably mixed up with it. At this point of the case, I was asked to bring the matter before the notice of the House of Commons. I investigated all the facts, and I consented to do so. I put a Question to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary made a reply, which I have here, but which I do not think I need read. On the following day, however, I received a letter from Messrs. Alsop and Co., the solicitors of the Society, who took up this case, and from which I would like to read a few words. The Committee will bear in mind that Messrs. Alsop and Co. are amongst the most respectable firms of solicitors in this City. This is the letter they sent to me on the following morning, and it should be remarked that I had not previously had any communication with them whatever—
    "Referring to your Question in the House last night, the Home Secretary's answer in many respects is inaccurate. She did give in evidence that she nearly fainted from the police constable's violence, and had to be helped to a seat, and a glass of cold water fetched to her. The charge was not withdrawn by the complainant in consideration of the constable's good character. In our opinion the assault would never have occurred but for the conduct of the magistrate which is so well known at that Court, as is borne out by the admission of what he did say to these respectable young women when they came into Court—namely, that they had been (stating it as a fact, but of which he knew nothing) over at the pot-house drinking."
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I have not heard a word in that letter bearing upon the point before the Committee.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: The first part of the letter referred to the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in this House; but I will not pursue that subject further in compliance with your intimation. After I had put my Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, I suggested that in order to protect the public it would be only reasonable and proper that Police Constable Butler should be removed from his position as warrant officer to the Clerkenwell Police Court.
    1444
    The right hon. Gentleman at first certainly did not share my view of the matter. He said, on the 29th July—
    "The usual practice is that a warrant officer is not withdrawn from the Police Court unless a complaint has been made by the magistrates, and no such complaint has been made in this case."
    "Well, Sir, it will be obvious to the Committee, after the statement of facts which I have put before them, that no complaint was likely to be received from the magistrates. However, I think I may be permitted to say that I pressed the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on the matter, and in the end he did what I suggested, removed Police Constable Butler from the Clerkenwell Police Court, and I may say here that Miss Parton is not influenced by any kind of vindictive feeling against this man, and that, in my case, no such idea can be imputed to me, because I never saw the man in my life. I have been actuated throughout this matter solely with regard to the public interest, and I am perfectly satisfied that so far as Police Constable Butler is concerned the matter might rest. But I have put this case, and I regret the length at which I have been obliged to state it; but I hope I shall have the patient consideration of the House, having regard to the somewhat difficult circumstances in which I stand. I say I have put this case at some length before the Committee, because it illustrates to my mind the system which prevails at Scotland Yard. It is impossible at Scotland Yard to get the complaints of the public attended to on their merits. The only way to get notice from the Commissioners is to squeeze these men by bringing the matter before the House, and by threat of a hostile Motion. Well, Sir, exactly the same policy of fobbing off was shown in the notorious case of Miss Cass. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is in very bad odour in the country at this moment in consequence of that case. [Cries of "No, no!"] It is useless for hon. Members opposite to say "No, no!" because the fact is notorious; but, as a matter of fact, I was going to say a word in favour of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I think that in the early stages of this case, at all events, the right hon. Gentleman was not so much to blame, because he gave the answer

    1445
    which were put into his mouth by Scotland Yard. And I say that in. those answers we notice exactly the same policy of fobbing-off complaints, if possible, which was still more conspicuously shown in the Parton case. Now, Sir, how is business conducted at Scotland Yard? I think we may derive from the case of Miss Cass an illustration of the mode in which business is conducted there in respect of cases which have not attracted very much attention. We know, because the facts have been detailed in this House, that on the 30th June, which was a Wednesday, a letter written on behalf of Miss Cass, containing that young lady's complaint, was posted to the Chief Commissioner, on the 2nd July the receipt of that letter was acknowledged by the Chief Clerk, and yet on the 5th July—that is, on. The following Tuesday, very nearly a-week after the complaint had been despatched, and within a few hours of the disastrous Division on which the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary were defeated—the right hon. Gentleman said that no complaint had been received by him on behalf of Miss Cass. Well, Sir, what explanation was given of that extraordinary inaccuracy? An explanation was given in a letter written by order of the Chief Commissioner on the 6th July to Madame Bowman, and it was to the effect that the communication which had been received had been forwarded to the Chief Constable in the district in the usual course for inquiry, and who would report as to the circumstances of the case, for the information of the Chief Commissioner. Now, that was on Tuesday afternoon, so that it appears that at the very time when the right hon. Gentleman was telling us in this House that no complaint had been received, the complaint was actually at headquarters in Scotland Yard. Well, Sir, on the Saturday, and more on the Monday, and even still more I must say on the Tuesday, the London newspapers were ablaze with this question; and yet the Chief Constable of the district referred to, the gentleman to whom we are paying a salary of £1,000 a-year, and from whom we naturally expect the exercise of great discretion, although, as I say, public feeling was going against the Government with regard to this matter, yet this Chief Constable, who had this com-
    1446
    plaint in his possession, appears never to have taken any special steps to bring it under the notice either of the Chief Commissioner or of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I am curious, Sir, to know the name of that most intelligent officer, and I hope presently, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, that he will tell us to whom we are indebted for such a signal example of official discretion. Now, I want to say a word or two about the evidence given by the police, which I mentioned at the beginning of these remarks. At the inquiry which was conducted before Sir Charles Warren we had some curious specimens of police witnesses. Of course it may be said that upon that occasion the man who was incompetent acted very recklessly; but my point is this—whether, in regard to the witnesses which were produced, he was simply imitating the example which had been set him by his superiors. I am very doubtful whether, if the public mind had not been concentrated upon that case, and if the light of public criticism had not been beating upon it very fiercely, James Wheatley and Madame Pietra would not have passed muster in the witness-box. I am very doubtful, indeed, whether J. Wheatley and Madame Pietra are not fair specimens of the genus police witness. Now, Sir, in the course of that inquiry, an attempt was made to discredit a witness because he had not followed to the police station immediately to make his statement there. Well, Sir, I think I can show that it is by no means pleasant, and may be exceedingly dangerous, for an independent witness to follow to the police station in such a case. On an appeal one witness stated—and I cite this case because it is clear from the result that the Middlesex magistrates regarded the witnesses of Mr. Williams on this occasion as witnesses of the truth—one witness stated in his evidence before the Middlesex magistrates that when Mr. Williams was taken into custody he endeavoured to force his way into the police station to give evidence on behalf of the appellant, but was violently pushed away and thrown upon the ground. And then, Sir, I have another case which, it seems to me, very strongly illustrates the practice — the most dangerous practice—which prevails of suppressing and discouraging

    1447
    independent witnesses. I will only trouble the Committee with a very few lines from this paper, which is a copy of a correspondence which passed between Sir Charles Warren and Mr. Tames Richards, of 51, Grosvenor Road, S.W., in regard to the conduct of the police at the Rochester Row Station. Mr. Richards writes on the 15th August, 1886—
    "I have a complaint to make against certain of the men on duty at the Rochester Row Station. On my way home on Saturday night about 12 o'clock, I saw an intoxicated driver being removed to the station. A man who was standing by, on being hustled by two plain-clothes constables who suddenly appeared on the scene, got into an altercation with them, and was promptly taken into custody; really because, not knowing who they were, he had expressed an opinion that he was as good a man as either of them, and requested one of them to 'come out in the road and have it out.' The man was quite sober, and by no means a rough customer, and there were only a very few persons present. I was merely a silent spectator of all this; but when the prisoner appealed to me to go with him to the station and state the real facts of the case, I felt it my duty to do so. When I got into the charge-room, however, I was told by these plain-clothes men that the affair was nothing to do with me, and that I had better 'clear out sharp;' and I was, in fact, hustled out by one of them in a most insulting manner. The other was a tolerably civil fellow, and followed me out apparently with a view of trying to smooth matters over; but whilst I was talking to him a man in uniform (No. 955 B) came into the passage, and in the most insolent manner, and using threats, ordered me to leave the station instantly."
    Well, a long correspondence followed, and in the result Mr. Richards said that he would leave the case unreservedly in the hands of the Chief Commissioner; and the final letter from the Chief Commissioner to Mr. Richards is in these words—
    "With reference to your letter of the 15th instant, I am directed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to acquaint you that he-regrets that you were put to any inconvenience on the occasion in question; but, on investigation, it would appear there was no intention of incivility on the part of the officers at the busy station in Rochester Row."
    Well, it was not a question of civility or incivility. Of course, we expect to receive civility from police constables; but the point is this—that the Chief Commissioner completely ignored the gravamen of the charge that was made—the gravamen of the charge being that the police at the Rochester Row Station had
    1448
    distinctly endeavoured to suppress independent testimony in a case in which their fellow-constables were concerned; and if you find evidence suppressed in this way, what wonder is it if subordinates follow the example of their chief? Now, I come to one or two administrative acts for which Sir Charles Warren is more distinctly and immediately responsible. I wish to say a word about the General Order issued by him with reference to black-mailing. As to blackmailing I have no evidence, and if I were asked to express my personal opinion, I should acknowledge that the charge of black-mailing against the police is not well founded. However, as to this, Sir Charles Warren contrived to put himself with the public distinctly in the wrong. He writes an Order in the following terms:—
    "The Chief Commissioner is, of course, aware that isolated cases of black-mailing may exist, just as the police are aware that offences against the law are committed by persons in every grade of society, and in every body or community. The police are drawn from the public, and are a selected body. Those who fail to do their duty, and whose fault is discovered, are returned to the ranks of the people. If, therefore, the allegations recently made against the police are in any way correct they reflect with still greater force upon the public."
    Well, Sir, it is unnecessary to say anything in order to expose the complete absurdity of that statement; but it looks almost as if Sir Charles Warren were hedging a little. It looks as if Sir Charles Warren was preparing himself for proof that those charges are well founded, and getting ready to wash his hands of the whole affair, and to say—"The police maybe bad; but you, the public, are very much worse." It is long since an officer in the position of Sir Charles Warren produced a document at once so silly and so offensive to the public, whose servant he is. Now, Sir, I want to say a word or two, as I promised I would, about the grievances of the police. There is one very serious grievance which Sir Charles Warren, by a recent Order, has inflicted upon them. By an Order issued as recently as May last Sir Charles Warren has declared that, except under very special circumstances, no constable over the age of 35 years, or with more than 10 years' service, is to be promoted to the office of ser-

    1449
    geant. Now, Sir, how many constables are there in the position here described. I ascertained from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the other day that there are no less than 4,227 men who come under the ban of this Order. That is to say, that every third man at least of the Constabulary of the Metropolitan Police is practically excluded from the hope of promotion. Now, Sir, that is not keeping faith with the men in the first place. They had a reasonable right to expect that if their conduct was good they would receive promotion; and this Order has very naturally produced intense dissatisfaction in the Force. I speak as an old official when I say that if you deprive the older men in your Public Service of all reasonable hope of promotion—and that is the practical effect of Sir Charles Warren's Order—you will have in the Force a leaven of dissatisfaction which, in the end, will ruin the efficiency of the whole Service. You cannot possibly, under such circumstances, keep a Public Department sweet. Now, Sir, just a word or two with regard to Sir Charles Warren from the taxpayer's point of view. Sir Charles Warren has most magnificent ideas; he is a very expensive personage for the public to deal with. Since he controlled the Metropolitan Police no fewer than four superior posts have been created, involving in the aggregate a cost of more than £3,000 a-year. Now, it is only fair to say that, as regards the creation of two of those posts, the responsibility does not rest solely upon the shoulders of Sir Charles Warren, because their creation was recommended by the small Departmental Committee which sat last year. But in regard to the two other posts to which I refer—that is to say, the posts which are styled "Assistant Chief Constables"—Sir Charles Warren appears to be alone responsible. Now, Sir, I should like to say a word about Sir Charles Warren regarded from the point of view of an ordinary citizen, who considers that the police is a civil force, and objects to its being converted into a semi-military body. Now, from this point of view, what are the facts? Since Sir Charles Warren's influence became effectual with the Metropolitan Police there have been five superior appointments made, and in each case an ex-military man has been appointed.
    1450
    The appointments were these—Colonel Koberts, Lieutenant Colonel Monsell, Major Gilbert, Colonel Dean, and Captain Knollys. With regard to Captain Knollys. I think the case is particularly noteworthy. Captain Knollys will control the preparatory section of the Metropolitan Police. Now, in the debate we had in this House last year on the February riots the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) complained of the want of a proper system of instruction in police duties for the rank and file of the force. The complaint made, I believe, was well founded. It was one which could have been removed by appointment of a Divisional Superintendent. One would certainly have thought that if there was a defect in the training of this preparatory section the proper way to remedy the defect would have been to appoint to the control of it a gentleman who had a large experience in police duties; whereas, as a matter of fact, Sir Charles Warren has appointed a military officer, who has had no experience whatever of police management. But it is only fair that I should say, even with regard to the appointment of these military men, that the responsibility does not rest entirely with Sir Charles Warren, because there is a passage in the Report of the Committee of last year which supports Sir Charles Warren to a certain extent, but not the whole way which he has gone. In that Report I find it stated—
    "As to the position and qualification of the Chief Constables, we agree with the Committee of 1879 that they should be gentlemen of good social standing, and, as a general rule, officers who have seen service in the Army and the Navy."
    This statement says that, as a "general rule," these gentlemen should have been officers in the Army or the Navy. But, as a matter of fact, Sir Charles Warren, at every vacancy which has occurred, has appointed a military man; and I do not think that his action, or even the recommendation of the Committee itself, will commend itself to the opinion of any fair-minded man, or to the taxpayers; generally. They are asked what should be the position and qualification of the Chief Constables, and they say that it should be that they should have good social standing. Well, Sir, I should have thought that the proper qualifica-

    1451
    tion for a Chief Constable would be some knowledge of a Chief Constable's duties. No doubt, there are plenty of men of a good social standing who would be extremely anxious to maintain their social position at the public expense; and I have no doubt that, on the strength of that recommendation, both the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the Chief Commissioner of Police would receive a very large number of applications from impecunious gentlemen who have, undoubtedly, got social standing; but, for my part, I stand almost aghast at the vista of jobbery to which it opens the door. Now it has been suggested to me that the responsibility for that condition of things rests rather on the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary than with Sir Charles Warren. Permit me to say, in the first place, that if the Home Secretary's salary were about to be voted by the Committee, I should feel a very keen thrill of satisfaction, in proposing that it should be disallowed, or, at any rate, very materially reduced. But the Home Secretary's salary is not the question before the Committee; and perhaps I may say that it is even more important we should have in the position of Chief Commissioner of the Police a man whom we can thoroughly trust than we should have in the position of Home Secretary a man whom we can thoroughly trust. The Home Secretary is constantly under our eye, and if he does anything which hon. Members disapprove of they can pull him up; and I certainly think there has been a marked change for the better in the demeanour of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) since a very notorious case. We may almost regard him now as a repentant sinner; but so far as Sir Charles Warren is concerned there have been no signs of repentance, for I may say—and I call the public Press as a witness in corroboration of my words—that the manner in which Sir Charles Warren conducted the inquiry into the Cass case has not increased the confidence which the public were disposed to place in him. Well, Sir, at all events, the question before us is not the conduct or the responsibility of the Home Secretary, but the conduct and responsibility of the Chief Commissioner. For a great part of the mischievous system which I have endeavoured to illustrate to-night Sir Charles Warren, of course, is respon-
    1452
    sible only as the head of that system; but I think that this House would fail in its duty if, when it finds a mischievous system prevailing, it did not hold the official head accountable for that system. I have brought this question before the Committee at a length which I very much regret, [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] I regret it perhaps even more than those Gentlemen who are good and kind enough to say "Hear, hear!" I regret it very much indeed; but I think the cases which I have put before the Committee will show that there is radical need for reform in the police system of the Metropolis. As the Representative of a very poor district in London I am peculiarly interested in this question. It is very unlikely, in the first place, that a rich man would be made the subject of an unjust accusation; but, if that were to happen, he would go into Court attended by a formidable array of the most eminent counsel, and he would be sure to receive justice. But in the case of a poor man all these circumstances are reversed; and, therefore, I ask the sympathies of all those who desire a reform—a radical reform—of the system under which as it exists at present numbers of Londoners, and especially of the poorer and humbler classes of Londoners, are almost in daily jeopardy. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,500.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item A, Salaries, be reduced by the sum of £1,500."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    MR. JAMES STUART: I do not desire to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes; but I want particularly to call their attention to the cost, of the Metropolitan Police. It may be in the recollection of the Committee that last year I obtained a Return comparing the cost of the police in London, in the City of London, and in the Metropolitan Police District, with the cost of the police in various large towns in England. The Return gave the cost of the police per pound of rateable value, per inhabitant, per acre, per inhabited house, per mile of street, and the cost per constable of the whole of the expenses returned. I have not had an opportunity of calling attention to this Return before. Perhaps the Committee may notice that from this Return, which is No. 193, the

    1453
    cost of the Metropolitan Police per pound of rateable value, and per inhabitant of the Metropolitan Police District, stands considerably above that of the police in any principal town. Now, in the City of London the cost of the police per inhabitant stands very much in front of the cost of any other force; but perhaps it is hardly fair to isolate the City Force in this way. In the Metropolitan Police District, however, the cost of the police in the year returned per pound of the rateable value was 8¾d. It is in the present Estimate 9d. per pound of rateable value, of which 4d. is defrayed out of the Consolidated Fund, and 5d. out of the rates of the Metropolis. If you take the large towns, such as Liverpool, for instance, and go down the list as it stands here, you find that the cost of the police per pound of rateable value is in Liverpool, not 9d. as in London, but 5¾d.; in Glasgow, 6¼d.; in Birmingham, 7¼d.; in Manchester, 7½d.; in Leeds, 7½d.; in Sheffield, 6½d.; in Edinburgh, 4½d.; and. I need not continue down the whole list. Then, again, taking the cost of the police per inhabitant, in the Metropolitan Police District it is 4s. 11 d.; in Liverpool, 3s.; in Glasgow, 3s. 8¾d.; in Birmingham, 2s. 5½d.; in Manchester, 4s. 2d.; in Leeds, 2s. 3½d.; in Sheffield, 2s. 0½d.; in Edinburgh, 2s. 9¾d.; and, again, I need not go further. Coming to the cost of the police per constable employed in ordinary police duties, the cost in the Metropolitan District also stands very high. It is £100 17 s. 3d.; whereas in Liverpool it is £84 2s, 7d.; in Glasgow, £78 18 s. 8½d.; and, again, I need not continue down the list. But a considerable portion of that difference may be accounted for by the fact that the Superannuation Fund comes to about 10 per cent of the whole cost, and if you knock that off you reduce the cost per constable in the Metropolitan Police District to £90, or, roughly speaking, thereabouts. But, even then, you notice the Metropolitan Police District stands at the head of the list, with one or two exceptions which, perhaps, may be capable of explanation, although I confess I do not know what the explanation may be. Now, of course, the ordinary police constable in London does not get more than the ordinary police constable elsewhere gets. In the matter of salary a police constable gets, roughly speaking,
    1454
    about 28 s. a-week. There is a considerable scale of pay, of course; but the salary runs, as nearly as I can ascertain, the same at Liverpool, at Manchester, and other places as in London. Another addition to the cost in the Metropolitan Police District may arise from the cost of management. In the rough estimate I have given I have, in speaking of the constable, deducted from the cost of the police in the Metropolitan District what seems to be the cost of the Superannuation Fund, which is not necessarily excluded in the case of the towns I have mentioned. There is also excluded, by the nature of this Return, all the sums paid for rents, rates, and taxes, &c, which may fall and which do fall, to a considerable extent, upon the Metropolitan Police Fund; whereas, in other towns, it may be involved in other expenses not so returned. Still, as these are eliminated, there can be little doubt that the Metropolitan Police is a more expensive body to manage and carry on than, generally speaking, the police forces of large towns; and not only that, but it seems to me, judging from the cost per pound of the rateable value and the cost per inhabitant, that there is a very considerably larger police force employed in London in proportion than in other large towns. That, of course, is a mere matter of judgment for the Commissioners of Police; but whether that judgment might altogether be in the same sense if the Commissioners of the Police were responsible to the ratepayers I will not presume to say, though I have little doubt that the general cost of management would be reduced were the Commissioners responsible to the ratepayers; and that really brings me to the point that we are at this moment dealing with. London, in this respect, affords a very remarkable instance of the mischief of these expenses not being within the control of the rateyayers themselves. It is now intended to fix a rate of 5d. in the pound upon the Metropolitan Police District, which is imposed entirely without the consent of the ratepayers of London, and under circumstances in which no voice in the management at all is given to those ratepayers. And I want to point out another matter connected with the police of London. It may be justly said that London has such a large representation in this House

    1455
    that we can come to the Home Secretary and the Government and, in this House, make out our case in respect to extravagance, it there is any. Our discussion now is a proof that we can. We can get a quarter of an hour or two hours' discussion on this important question; but how can we be really affected by the discussion when the question is finally settled by a large number of Members who are not at all affected in the matter? If the Metropolitan Members were to be formed into a Grand Committee it would be a different thing, and I am not at all sure that much good would not come out of such a Committee; but I want to point out that which may have escaped the notice of Members of this Committee generally, and that is that since the last discussion of this Committee we have enfranchised the police. That was a measure which had the approval of both sides of the House. The enfranchisement of the police does not affect a town like Liverpool, or the Representatives of a town like Liverpool, or any other big town. But it must be observed that at present the only Court, so to speak, for determining any of the matters that affect the police of London is the House of Commons. Now, when you look at the number of police in London; you find there is on the average about 220 or so to every constituency in London; and, therefore, you raise up a very considerable source of influence in this House of a kind which is undesirable. That is an additional argument in favour of removing all dealings with these municipal questions in London from the immediate control of this House. I make these remarks, I confess, more to emphasize the need in London of Metropolitan Government than to urge the reduction of this Vote, which I am bound to say it seems to me very difficult for any Metropolitan Member to obtain a reduction of, and which, in fact, is a Vote which ought not to be submitted to this House at all.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): We are obliged to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Stuart) for having called attention to the contents of the Return which was granted upon his Motion last year. He has given the true explanation of the; difference in the cost of the Metropolitan
    1456
    Police and other police forces— namely, that the Superannuation Fund is included in the cost of the one, and not in the cost of the police forces of the other towns. The hon. Member also broadly stated the contrast between the charge for the Metropolitan Police, and the charge for the police in many of the large towns. I agree with him that the cost of the Metropolitan Police is still too high, and I hope it is capable of reduction. This is a very large and difficult subject, and these are the first Estimates that have come immediately under my control. I have not yet been able to ascertain the direction in which reductions may be made; but the hon. Gentleman will observe that the Metropolitan Police number upwards of 11,500 men, and that that is 11 times as large a number as that of any of the police forces of the largest towns. I need not point out that, in order to keep in anything like decent order a force of this magnitude, a large superior staff is required in London; while it is not needed in the large towns. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill), whose watchful eye I am glad to see is always on the police and on the First Commissioner, has complained of the recommendations of the Committee which sat last year to consider the organization of the police. The Committee, which was appointed on the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), pointed out that one defect in the police system was the want of an intermediate grade of superior commanders, who should decentralize, so to speak, the police force. The five military personages, of whose appointment the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green complains, were appointed Chief Constables in the different districts of London. These appointments could not be made without entailing increased expenditure. It is extremely difficult to get from the heads of the Constabulary in a locality information in pecuniary matters; and I am, therefore, obliged to proceed with much forbearance on the subject. I imagine, however, that the accoutrements and clothing of the Metropolitan Police are more expensive than in the cases of our large towns. In the Metropolitan Police, for instance, there are between 400 and 500 mounted men, who, while being efficient, are expensive to

    1457
    maintain. Then, again, there is the conversion of police stations from leaseholds into freeholds, and the cost of alteration in the cells in order to secure a proper separation of the sexes. Well, all these operations in London are costly, extremely costly. I admit that repairs alone come to a very considerable sum.
    DR. TANNER: I rise to a point of Order. Sir. I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman if these repairs are charges?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    DR. TANNER: Certainly, Sir.
    MR. S. SMITH: I should like to know, Sir.——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. MATTHEWS: Among other things, we have undertaken an audit, because, without admitting that there is any malversation, items do creep into the accounts which ought not to. Then, with regard to the observations of the hon. Member (Mr. Pickersgill) in reference to particular cases, I do not propose to detain the Committee at any length, although he himself, at great length, rehearsed the various topics of which, perhaps, hon. Members have heard enough already in the shape of Questions. I really do not think there is anything more to be said about the Parton case. In what way the Commissioner of Police is to blame I cannot understand. The constable, no doubt, misbehaved himself, and he has been reprimanded and punished. It is well that it should be borne in mind that the constable had been warrant officer for 12 years without a report having been made against him. With regard to another case of still greater notoriety, in which criminal proceedings have been instituted, I shall not follow the example of the hon. Gentleman. I shall not enter upon it or say a word about it. In the case of Mr. Richard, I cannot see how the Commissioner of Police was to blame. Mr. Richard was anxious to testify to the fact of having seen committed what he considered an offence, and when he went to the police station he was hustled. Sir Charles Warren has offered a handsome apology for what has occurred, and I am at a loss to see what need there is for anything further. With regard to to the grievances of the Force concerning promotion, Sir Charles Warren is in no way responsible; and as to the appointments to superior posts,
    1458
    all I have to say is that they were made in compliance with the recommendation of the Committee of this House, and I am in no way responsible for that recommendation or its adoption.
    MR. JAMES STUART: While I admit very largely the explanation of the difference between the cost of the London Police and that of local towns, that difference cannot be altogether attributed to the expenses connected with the police stations, though in London they are, no doubt, very great. In the remarks I have made I did not attach any blame to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews), or to the present Government. It is the system of which I complain. I consider it most unfortunate that the Home Secretary, who is not responsible in any way for London government, should have to apologize in this House for the expenses of the police. It must be admitted that it would be better that such a duty were imposed upon somebody directly responsible to the London ratepayers, or to a body representative of the London ratepayers. I wish to make this explanation, because I am sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) is as desirous as anyone to effect reductions wherever they can be properly made.
    DR. TANNER: Of course, Mr. Courtney, I always wish to subject myself to your wise judgment and discretion in all things, and when I rose to a point of Order a few moments ago the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) was talking about the alterations in the cells of police stations, and about the cost they entailed. Alterations come under quite a different Vote to the one we are now discussing, and I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in the course of his observations. Although I am an Irishman, I take considerable interest in the Vote for the Metropolitan Police. Some hon. Members of the House may ask why an Irishman should take an interest in the Metropolitan Police Vote. [Laughter.] I see the hon., gallant, and learned Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent) smiles; perhaps the hon., gallant, and learned Member who, I suppose, smiles for a purpose, will tell us why he laughs. The reason why I do take an interest in this Vote is that in the Metropolitan Police Force there are many Irishmen. Upon the

    1459
    occasion of a large fire recently, I was simply surprised to see the number of Irishmen who were gallantly doing their duty to the Metropolis. Naturally, therefore, as an Irishman, I take an interest in this Force, although it is employed in the City of London. I suppose that in a short time we shall be able to give better employment to these men at home. Now, as a junior Member of this House, and as a man who has not the experience of any of the hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the Committee upon this subject, I must say it appears to me to be simply puerile to say that this force must of necessity cost more in proportion than the many minor police forces which are scattered about the country. A much stronger staff is required; but the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said just now that this Metropolitan Police Force requires more supervision, and more outlay in consequence of that supervision, than other police forces. In short, he maintains that this body of men requires more supervision than a scattered body of men requires. Latterly, I have visited many parts of this land, and I have been amazed at the well-organized forces I found in all directions, and notably in the country districts. I think you have got a very excellent police force in the Provinces, probably a great deal better than you have in this City. I do not want, however, to make any remarks upon recent cases which have occurred in connection with the Metropolitan Police. I do not want to throw dirty water upon this Vote; but, at the same time—I see the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) understands what I mean—but, at the same time, I must say this—that in the country districts, and notably in the country parts of England, you have got an excellent police force without half the expenditure of money you incur in connection with the Metropolitan Police, for which police we are now asked to vote this annual contribution. If the right hon. Gentleman were to go into any of the country towns or districts he would see a police force there well equipped and well kept; they are not many in number, but they are scattered here and there, and, naturally enough, if they are to be kept in an efficient state, they require considerable supervision. Well, what becomes of the right hon. Gentleman's
    1460
    argument that the Metropolitan Force, a centralized force, is obliged to cost more money for supervision than a separated and disseminated force costs? Is such an argument not ludicrous in the extreme? And, accordingly, I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman must be at fault somehow or other. These matters will have to be explained, as other things will have to be explained. The right hon. Gentleman will be called upon, aye, and at no very distant date, to give an account of this force, which may be wielded for right, which ought to be wielded for right, but which, in many respects, is not wielded for the support of law and order, or for the safeguarding of the people. If the Questions which have been addressed to the Government are not answered, I must say, judging from what I know of the English people—and, thank goodness, I know something about them now —[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh. At one time I did not care much about the opinion of the English people; but now, thank God, owing to the expression of opinion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), I am proud of the English nation—I am proud of the English democracy; and, therefore, I call upon the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) who is in charge of this Vote, to try and protect the English democracy against what at the present time appears to be—[Laughter]—Ah! you may laugh; I do not happen to have the experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), who kindly takes his hat off to me, but I can afford to pass by in silence the jeers and laughter of certain hon. Members, and I appeal to Members on the other side of the House to take cognizance of the iniquities which are practised in connection with this Police Vote. I call upon a responsible Minister, who does not laugh—[Cries of "Order!"] The right hon. Gentleman does not laugh—he knows better. The right hon. Gentleman is more courteous to Members. [Cries of "Order!"] Mr. Courtney, I ask for your support. I maintain, in connection with this Vote, that the country ought to ask for some definite expression of opinion upon the views which have been expressed upon these Benches. I certainly hope that before this Vote is passed the right hon.

    1461
    Gentleman will offer some opinion to us; otherwise it will be my painful duty to move a reduction of the Vote, at which, perhaps, hon. Gentlemen will not laugh.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 118: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 411.) [10.30 P.M.]
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I confess that I am somewhat astonished that the question relating to the cells in police stations has not been raised by the Metropolitan Members; because, unquestionably, those cells are not fit for the purpose for which they are used. I put this to the Committee as a matter of considerable importance. The persons taken to the police stations may be guilty or not; but, at any rate, decency ought to be observed with regard to the cells in which they are placed. There is another subject upon which I desire to receive some information. I should like to know whether the promoters of race meetings pay for the expenses of the Metropolitan Police who attend those meetings, or whether they are a charge upon this Vote?
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I am quite in agreement with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) with reference to this question of police cells, and I ask whether the Home Office Authorities are prepared to carry out the scheme that was submitted to them two years ago for the thorough reconstruction of the police stations in the Metropolis? It was suggested two years ago that the Home Office should deal with this question of the Metropolitan Police as it is dealt with in Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, and other large towns—that is to say, that money should be borrowed to put the stations in a proper state, and the principal and interest paid off—by Terminable Annuity. I consider that the Metropolitan Police is, on the whole, economically and wisely managed; but I wish to call attention to the Superannuation Fund, which is carried out on a scale in the Metropolis which does not prevail in any other part of the Kingdom. I understand that a large number of police constables are systematically
    1462
    pensioned off, when they are under 50 years of age, and after but a few years service. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay down a more stringent rule with reference to superannuation of police constables? There have been some rather severe remarks made on the Metropolitan Police. I am not going to defend them, and I think in some recent cases their conduct has been to blame; but I believe that the Metropolitan Police Force should be done justice to as a whole. No doubt there are some black sheep among them; but we know that in London a population of 5,000,000 are kept in order by 12,000 men who are the representatives of law and order, and I am bound to say, as far as I know, that they discharge their duties to the satisfaction of the public. I do not think that on the discussion of this Vote it should go forth to the public that there is anything like distrust towards these 12,000 men as a body, or that there is any doubt as to the ability and integrity with which they discharge their duties. I hope the Committee will at all times investigate with the greatest severity any case of proved misconduct; but, at the same time, I think we are bound to render a just tribute to a body of men against whom there have been no serious cases of complaint for a long series of years.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I am sure the Committee will agree with the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, that, upon the whole, the Metropolitan Police are a singularly well-behaved body. I have myself been astonished to learn how few cases of misconduct are brought forward in connection with them. So far as I have observed, if a complaint is made, the presumption is that the policeman has not misconducted himself—I am bound to say that the presumption is in his favour rather than against him. I am, therefore, very glad to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, which I most cordially endorse. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I may say that we are doing our utmost to improve the condition of the police cells; but it would not be desirable or expedient to expend a large sum of money upon the old police stations, which are

    1463
    leasehold. All I can say is that the moment we obtain freehold Bites we shall do our best to make the cells all that they ought to be. Power was taken last year to borrow £22,000 for the express purpose of converting these stations into freeholds, and improve their general condition and arrangements; and I would point out that in the 10 years ending on the 31st of March, 1886, the sum; of £127,900 has been expended for this purpose. The statement is that there are leaseholds in the possession of the Metropolitan Police, at rents amounting to £3,000, which, as soon as we are able, we intend to replace by freeholds. Many of these police stations, I am sorry to say, are very inadequate for the purpose for which they are intended. The Police Authorities have been obliged to take leasehold premises where they are required, and it has not been deemed wise to make any large outlay on the property. I have before me a table, showing the cases in which the number of prisoners have exceeded the number of cells. The condition of things which this points to is most objectionable, and it is one which, as far as we are able, we are endeavouring to avoid. There are, however, not many cases in which more than one person has to be put into a cell. I think the case of Vine Street is the worst in this respect, because I find that the average number of prisoners per cell is three and a-half. This, of course, is an undesirable state of things, and one which should be put a stop to as soon as possible. With, regard to the question of superannuation, it is quite true that the scale is a very liberal one. It provides not only for pensions according to terms of service, but also for an extra payment when a policeman is wholly or partially disabled in the execution of his duty. I have been called to account for having disallowed the allowance in one case, and I confess that I have felt it my duty to look with a little suspicion on medical certificates relating to injuries which some men are said to have received when on duty. I have taken care to see that the extra allowances are only given in the case of injuries by violence, and not where they have been due to the constable's own carelessness, or causes which do not entitle him to such extra allowance. I think the right hon. Gentleman the
    1464
    Member for East Wolverhampton will agree that a fairly liberal system of well-earned pensions is one which conduces greatly to good feeling and to faithful service among the members of the Police Force. When men know that if they are injured in the discharge of their duties their families will not be left wholly unprovided for, or driven to seek parish relief, they will be all the more ready to do their duty fearlessly. With regard to the attendance of the police at race meetings, this is a special service, and the expenses of the police have to be borne by those who employ them.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton that I commenced the remarks I made just now with a tribute to the general good qualities of the police, and that my complaints were directed exclusively against the system for which Scotland Yard is responsible. I now feel it my duty to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000, being the salary of the Legal Adviser of the First Commissioner. In the Report of a Departmental Committee which sat in 1879 the abolition, of that office was recommended.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! There is no item of that kind in the Vote. The hon. Member may possibly be able to justify the reduction of the Vote by £1,000; but he cannot move it on the ground stated.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: It will be in the recollection of the Committee that the Departmental Committee recommended the abolition of the office of Legal Adviser, and that they also recommended that the discharge of his duties should be provided for by the appointment of one Assistant Commissioner, who should have legal knowledge. The time has now arrived for considering this matter, because only a month ago Mr. Davies, who filled this office, died, and the office is now vacant. I rely on the recommendation of the Departmental Committee that this office should be abolished. I am sure, from my experience of Departmental Committees, that they would never recommend the abolition of any office, unless there were the strongest reasons in favour of such a course. In this Report reference is made to the fact that one of the Assistant

    1465
    Commissioners should possess legal knowledge; but, as a matter of fact, that is the case now, because Mr. Bruce is a barrister, and I believe he was appointed because he possessed that knowledge, and I believe also with the ultimate view of abolishing the office of which I am speaking. We have heard to-night that many posts have been recently created; it is, therefore, desirable that we should, if possible, make some reduction in this Estimate, and I am of opinion that a more reasonable reduction could not be made than by abolishing this, as it seems to me, unnecessary office of Legal Adviser.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £274,620, be granted to Her Majesty for the said Services."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
    MR. MATTHEWS: This question of the Legal Adviser to the First Commissioner is not an easy one to deal with. I may inform the Committee that I shall be in no hurry to appoint a successor to the office; but allow me to remind the hon. Member that there are many points on which competent legal advice is necessary for the First Commissioner of Police. In the first place, it is very necessary that the police should be advised, with reference to many charges which they have to bring, as to how they ought to be drawn. Difficult questions are constantly arising with regard to the Statutes, and with regard also to the Police Regulations on subjects by no means easy in themselves; statutory changes are continually being made, in which it is necessary that the Commissioners should be posted up, and investigations have to be made into the titles of land purchased for sites for new police stations and similar matters. There are, in short, a whole series of points on which legal advice is most necessary. No doubt, much of the work might be done by a solicitor; but we should probably find that the solicitor's bill would come to as much as we are charged here. It is clear, therefore, that the amount of legal work that will have to be done in connection with the Force is more than one man can get through; but whether or not it will be necessary to appoint a barrister I have not yet made up my mind. I intend to go rather minutely into the case with the Commissioners in order to see whether this is
    1466
    necessary. In the meantime, I repeat my assurance that there is a great deal of legal business in connection with the daily work of the police, which is in itself sufficient to justify the expenditure of this sum of £1,000.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I should like to point out that since the Departmental Committee recommended the abolition of this office a third Commissioner has been appointed; and I would therefore ask if the work could not be so apportioned to the other Commissioners that it would leave Mr. Bruce free to undertake the whole of the legal work which falls on the office. The right hon. Gentleman has, however, met me very fairly on this question, and I will not press the matter any farther than to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    DR. CLARK: I wish to call attention to the necessity not only of putting the police cells into a proper condition, but to that of having them whitewashed, and to the use of a little chloride of lime. I remember that 10 years ago the cells at Bow Street were in a shocking sanitary condition; and I do urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity of preventing objectionable accumulations in the cells.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (9.) £21,000, to complete the sum for Special Police.
    DR. CLARK: I should like to have from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department some information with regard to the purposes to which this Vote is applied. I think some statement is also desirable as to the reasons why the Vote, which was originally £15,000, has increased to £37,000 for the present year.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I can give the hon. Member for Caithness some idea of the way in which this Vote is made up. The special protection of Government buildings of various kinds requires the service of 1 inspector, 7 sergeants, and 178 constables. The additional force for the protection of the Houses of Parliament, which was put on some time since, and is maintained during the Session, numbers 2 sergeants

    1467
    and 35 constables. For other purposes, there are required 1 inspector, 8 sergeants, and 36 constables, and for the purpose of supervising all this machinery there are employed 2 inspectors, 4 sergeants, and 22 constables. The total expenditure for these purposes is £35,760, and we have this year taken a margin of £1,240 in the amount asked for under the present Vote. The hon. Gentleman will see that the whole of this Vote is to supply the protection deemed to be necessary for the public buildings and property in the Metropolis. I hope the time is not far distant when we may be able to relax the present strict police supervision; but it will be in the recollection of the Committee that not long ago some of the finest public buildings were attempted to be destroyed by explosives of a very dangerous character.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: It seems to me unnecessary to retain these words about dynamite on the Vote. Why not leave them out, and merely state that the Vote is for special police duties?
    DR. CLARK: I suggest that it would be better not to have Government Offices distributed all over the South-West District. There is the Irish Office, for instance, placed in a street by itself, and the consequence of that is that two policemen have to be kept there to look after it.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) £856,286, to complete the sum for Police—Counties and Boroughs, Great Britain.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) whether he is able to give us any information with reference to the detention of prisoners awaiting trial? Some years ago there was a very important Report made in regard to the very serious want of accommodation for prisoners——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is quite outside the scope of this Vote.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: These prisoners are in charge of the police throughout the country.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The point is quite outside the scope of the Vote.
    DR. TANNER: Since we cannot have upon this Vote the explanation that my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor) requires, can we get it in any other way, Sir? It is important that the treatment of the unfortunate men who happen to be detained awaiting trial should receive some attention.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That question I have ruled to be disconnected with this Vote.
    DR. TANNER: If that is the case, Sir, may I make an inquiry as to Item B, Sub-head 2? I find there is a decrease in this Vote. As far as I happen to be individually concerned in criticizing these Estimates, it is, of course, pleasing to find that the Votes are decreasing; but I should like to know the reason why there is a decrease, and I think there are a great many other people in this Realm who would also like to hear some substantial reason for the decrease. Item B refers to travelling allowances, and the decrease is extremely slight; it is only a matter of some £25. I should like to know, however, how it comes about that these items, which are usually made to tally year by year with a most delicious, charming accuracy, do not tally in the present instance? I regret that the First Lord of the Treasury, who is so exact, and who requires everything to be put down in a systematical and business-like way, is not now in his place. I should have asked him, had he been present, how it is there is a decrease in this Item? [Cries of Divide!"] If hon. Members opposite press me, I shall certainly insist upon a Division; aye, and bring more matters to a Division. We are here to transact Business, and I maintain that our Business should be transacted properly. I want to know why it is that we have this decrease of £25 in the travelling allowances, and I also hope that subsequently the very important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) will receive some attention.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): The only explanation I can give of this small decrease of the Vote is that the £25 was not required.
    MR. CHANCE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman in one word

    1469
    will explain how it is that Item D is increased by £7,000?
    MR. STUART-WORTLEY: The increase is automatic. It is in consequence of the increased numbers required by-local Police Authorities.
    Vote agreed to.
    (11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £508,018, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Expenses of the Prisons in England, Wales, and the Colonies."
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I desire to put a Question to the Government in regard to the Convict Prison at Dover. I observed that the sum of £5,000 is taken in the present year for this prison; £44,000 has already been expended on the building, and £68,000 is the ultimate cost, and of that £5,000 is asked for in the present year. Now, I need hardly point out that this item is inseparably connected with the cost of the proposed Dover Harbour, and last year a sum of £5,000 was asked for for the maintenance of the works at Dover Harbour. Inconsequence of the opposition raised in various quarters of the House that item was not pressed, and in the current year the Vote is altogether knocked out of the Estimate, and no money is now being asked for the extension of Dover Harbour, That raises the very serious question whether it is worthwhile to continue the erection of the convict prison there. Apart from Dover Harbour, I presume it never would have been contemplated to erect a convict prison at Dover. In other words, the two matters are inseparably connected, and if it be not intended by the Government to ask the House of Commons to adopt a Vote for undertaking the extension of Dover Harbour, I presume it will be quite unnecessary to erect a convict prison in that locality. I wish, therefore, to ask the Government what is really their position in regard to this important question? It appears to me it is really not worth while to continue the present works, if it is not intended to further progress with the harbour. On the other hand, if it be intended to continue this convict prison, I should like also to ask whether this particular item includes anything for
    1470
    works at Dungeness Point, as I understand a subsidiary convict prison is intended to be erected at that point also in connection with the works on the Dover Harbour?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): This item for the Dover Prison does not conceal any hidden design in regard to Dover Harbour. The item is merely for completing the work which was begun some years ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt); £8,000 was taken for the work last year, and we ask for £5,000 this year. The total cost of the prison is to be £68,000, of which £49,000 has been already spent. I think that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) will see that we have reduced our Prison Vote enormously. The policy of the Government, which I think the right hon. Gentleman will himself approve, is to take all convicts not under sentence of death out of London, and place them, as far as possible, on public works in the country. The works at Dover will serve like those at Dartmoor and Portland for that purpose. I have no doubt that we shall recoup the cost of Dover Prison by closing some other prison.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I really think the time has arrived when the House of Commons should make up its mind with reference to Dover Harbour, for we are in this position—that last year two or three pertinacious Members of this House practically put a stop to what was the deliberate decision of the House of Commons some years ago. We have to provide, in some shape or other, for convict labour. Since the abolition of transportation we have to provide in this country labour not for ordinary prisoners, but for prisoners undergoing sentences of penal servitude. The works of Portland are now completed, and there is, practically, no further accommodation for convicts in the Portland Prison. The House of Commons, after inquiry as to the construction of a harbour, either at Dover or Filey, determined that a harbour should be built at Dover, mainly for the purpose of providing for convicts, and something like £70,000—I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) said £48,000; but I think we are a long way on to-

    1471
    wards £70,000—has been spent upon these prison works. In providing for convict labour, you must first complete a prison in which the convicts are to be housed during the performance of the labour, and in accordance with the vote of this House this large sum of money has been expended in building a convict: prison at Dover. If you do not provide these men with labour you will have to; keep them idle. What are you to do ' with them? The Committee should make up its mind at once as to whether it will proceed with the construction of a harbour at Dover, because, if a harhour is to be constructed elsewhere, we ' shall have to proceed to erect a convict prison at the place. As I have said, the controversy was as to whether a harbour should be constructed at Filey or at Dover. I am not now going to open up that controversy; the House of Commons decided in favour of Dover as against Filey; but two or three influential Members of this House would not accept the decision. I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) is quite justified in asking the Government what they mean to do in respect to the harbour; because, if it is not intended that the extension should be proceeded with, it is not necessary that a convict prison should be erected at Dover.
    MR. SHAWLEFEVRE: Practically, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) has not answered my question at all. My contention is, that the question of the erection of this convict prison at Dover is inseparably connected with the extension of Dover Harbour. The erection of this prison was proposed in connection with the Dover Harbour works; indeed, no one would ever have dreamt of erecting a prison at Dover if it had not been intended also to commence large extension works in regard to the harbour. Apparently, all idea of extending the harbour has been dropped; and therefore the continuance of the erection of the convict prison becomes a matter of very doubtful expediency. It is necessary to employ convicts somewhere. If you abandon the Dover Harbour works, you must employ the convicts elsewhere. It appears to me, therefore, that the Government ought to make up their minds at once whether they will commence these Dover Harbour works or not. The Government should
    1472
    come to a decision one way or the other, either to commence the works or not. If they intend to commence the works, a Vote should be presented to the House, in order to take the decision of the House of Commons on the subject. If they come to a decision to drop the extension of the harbour works, that, in my opinion, would involve the stoppage of the convict prison works, because the convict prison at Dover would be useless, and it would be necessary to build a prison elsewhere, where the new harbour was to be constructed.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I am sorry I was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) raised this question. As I have had something to do with the omission from the Estimates for this year of the Vote for Dover Harbour proper, perhaps I may state what took place. The right hon. Gentleman and the Committee will remember that last year there was upon the Estimates a Vote for the sum of £1,000 for the purpose of making some preliminary examinations with the view of framing some Estimate to present to the House as to the cost of the proposed Dover Harbour. Objection was taken to the Vote, and the Government did not press it. So far as Dover Harbour proper is concerned, there has been no expenditure, no step whatever taken with a view either to prepare an Estimate or prepare plans. The House ought to be informed, and ought to have before it some plan with some reliable Estimate, before they undertake an expenditure which I have the best reason to suppose will not be less than £1,000,000 sterling. The Government, in framing these Estimates, had to consider what should be done. It is quite true that the prison which is being built will be of no use if the harbour works are not proceeded with; but it is also true that before committing the House to the expenditure of £1,000,000 the House ought to be in possession of some reliable data on which to come to a decision. The question was, what were we to do? We saw no more economical course to take than to continue the employment of the convicts upon the completion of the buildings on which they are now engaged. The sum of £5,000 is asked for this year for the I purpose of proceeding with the erection of

    1473
    the prison buildings at Dover; but no decision has been arrived at by the Government as to what shall be done in regard to the harbour. We have already got on hand one harbour. It is being constructed, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) knows, at Peter-head, and the estimated cost of it has risen from £500,000 to £750,000, with the possibility that it will reach even more than that. I believe there are very serious doubts in the minds of competent engineers as to whether Dover is not the very worst place in the whole country which can be selected at which economically to employ convict labour. They think that the saving by the employment of convict labour at Dover will be less than at any other place at which they could be employed. This raises a serious question, which the Government must deliberately and carefully consider; and it will be the duty of the Government before the next Estimates are prepared to endeavour to come to some conclusion, and to make some recommendation to the House. I hope that after this explanation the Committee will feel that, although there has been nothing done as regards the harbour, we are taking the only economical course we could—namely, to continue to employ the convicts in building the prison, deferring the question of the enormous expenditure which must take place if the Dover Harbour is proceeded with until the House can be in possession of every information respecting it.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am sorry to trouble the Committee again; but, in point of fact, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) has confirmed all I have said. He says that if it is not intended to proceed with the harbour works this convict prison will be useless. That is just what I started with; and he further says that the harbour will cost more than £1,000,000; that in the opinion of competent people Dover is one of the worst places at which to employ convict labour; and that there would be less saving from the employment of convicts at Dover than at any other place. I think that, under these circumstances, we require a little more light before we proceed further. It is quite clear that if the House and the country come to the conclusion not to proceed with the
    1474
    Dover Harbour works this expenditure of £45,000 will be thrown away; and, therefore, the sooner the Government come to a conclusion the better. I hope that within the next few weeks the Government will seriously inquire into the whole subject, and ascertain what will be the cost of this extension, if undertaken, and what will be the saving effected by convict labour. I think we have some reason to complain that a decision was not arrived at by the Government between last Session and the present.
    MR. JACKSON: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Government ought to make an inquiry speedily; but let me point out that before any decision is arrived at it is absolutely necessary that some expenditure should be incurred for surveys and making borings to test the condition of the foundations, &c. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it is a matter of anxious consideration to us, and that we shall endeavour to arrive at a conclusion before we submit the Estimates next year.
    MR. PICTON: I wish to call attention to another item in this Vote, and to move the reduction of the Vote by a small amount. The smallness of the amount, however, is quite consistent with the great importance of the principle which is at stake. It is nothing less than the fairness with which contracts are given out by the authorities that have to do with them; and I trust the Committee will be good enough to give me their attention while I state, very briefly, what the facts are which have induced me to bring forward the subject at the present time. I may say at once I have no complaint to make against the present Government, as the incident to which I have to allude took place before they came into Office. It is the system that is concerned and the system of which I have to complain. Last year an advertisement appeared in various papers asking for tenders for the supply of drugs to Her Majesty's Prisons. Now, in Leicester, the borough I have the honour to represent——
    DR. CLARK: I rise to Order, Sir. I have a Motion to make in respect of Sub-head A, Salaries, and I should like to know whether we can return to Sub-head A, if we take a

    1475
    Division on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton)?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It would not be possible to move the reduction of Subhead A. if the hon. Member carries his Motion to a Division.
    MR. PICTON: I am not sure, Sir, whether I shall take my Motion to a Division; it depends upon what I hear in reply. I must say, Sir, I have risen two or three times with a view of bringing on this subject, and I should like to proceed now. If you direct me to sit down, of course, I shall do so.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to persevere.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I want to draw attention, Sir——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. CONYBEARE: I rise to a point of Order, Sir. I desire to raise a question concerning the salaries of the chaplains. I do not know whether I shall be debarred from doing so if the present Motion is proceeded with.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman ought to be more vigilant. The hon. Member (Mr. Picton) is in possession of the Committee, and is entitled to proceed if he desires to do so.
    MR. PICTON: I put this Notice upon the Paper a long time ago, and if hon. Members wished to bring forward previous Amendments they should have done so. I was saying that an advertisement appeared in the papers requiring tenders for drugs to be supplied to Her Majesty's Prisons. In the borough of Leicester, which I have the honour to represent, there is a firm known by the title of Messrs. Richardson and Co., which supply drugs to a large number of hospitals and medical societies. The firm has been established for nearly 100 years; therefore it is no new undertaking. It has endeavoured to keep pace with the times; it has altered its methods of business and modes of analysis so as to provide the best drugs necessary for medical practice. Messrs. Richardson and Co., sent in their tender, the tender was not accepted; but they ascertained by means which I need not speculate upon, because the facts were acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—they ascertained that the successful tender offered a price 7½ per cent above what they had offered.
    1476
    Messrs. Richardson and Co. had tendered at 20 per cent below the list of the prices drawn up by the Prison Authorities; whereas the successful tender was only 12½ per cent below the prices of the Prison Authorities. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, when I put the question to him on the subject, acknowledged that the facts were substantially as stated; but he added that it appeared to him to be reasonable that the Medical Department should have power to test the drugs, and that pure drugs should be obtained. Now, those words seemed to imply that my constituents probably did not offer pure drugs, or the best drugs. I therefore could not allow the matter to rest where it was, and I am prepared to tender the best possible evidence that they are competent to supply as pure drugs as anyone else in the country. I have in my hands here a letter from Dr. Frederick Treaves, who holds an important position in the London Hospital. Dr. Treaves, writing in the present year to Mr. Richardson, says—
    "In support of your application to the Home Office for the supply of medicine to the prisons, I Can only state that the relations of your firm to the London Hospitals has been of the most satisfactory character in all matters relating to the drugs supplied. Several preparations of your own that you introduced to our notice have been extensively employed in the London Hospitals. I need not dwell upon the high character and well-earned position of your firm. Whatever you have done you have done well, and I know of no large firm of chemists with a sounder reputation, who would be better able to undertake the tender to which I have alluded."
    I have also obtained 31 testimonials from medical men holding very excellent positions in all parts of the United Kingdom to the same effect, and under these circumstances it can scarcely be held that these gentlemen were incompetent to undertake the contract. Then why was their tender declined? No sufficient reason has been given. The Home Secretary could only suggest that the authorities had a right to take the purest drugs. Of course they have; but I have given evidence to show that these gentlemen are well able to furnish the purest drugs. It therefore naturally occurs to one that there must have been some other reason than that for giving the tender to others, whose tender was 7½ per cent above that of Messrs. Richardson and Co. What these reasons

    1477
    may have been I do not for a moment presume to say; but it is not unknown that favouritism is exercised for various reasons in giving out Government contracts, and it is of the utmost importance that we should jealously watch these matters, lest wrong should be done. I should not like for a moment to suggest that anything worse than personal favouritism is at work; but still it is necessary to guard even against that. I do not know who personally may have been responsible for giving out these tenders, and therefore I make no charge against anyone personally. But so long as no sufficient reason is given for accepting a tender of 7½ per cent higher than the tender made by a highly respectable firm I think the circumstances appear suspicious. I have therefore felt it my duty to give Notice to move, as I shall now do, that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £95. The reason why I mention this sum is that the Home Secretary informed me, when I asked him a Question upon this subject, that the difference of price amounted to only £95, as though he thought it was merely the amount of money that was in question. The amount of money is a trifling consideration. It is the reputation of a highly respectable firm that I am anxious about. Accepting the Home Secretary's information that £95 was the difference, and as £95 too much was spent. I now move that the Vote be reduced by £95, under the sub-head for drugs supplied to Her Majesty's Prisons.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item G, Medicine, &c, be reduced by the sum of £95, in respect of Drugs."—(Mr. Picton.)
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): No one can complain of the hon. Member acting as the champion of his constituents on this occasion. But, Sir, the question involved in the reduction which he proposes is one which reaches very far. It involves the whole question whether, when tenders are invited, one should have regard merely to price, and not also to quality. I confess that though there are cases— I do not say this is one of them—where the system of open competition is valuable, a wise discretion must be exercised
    1478
    in the acceptance of tenders, where, as in the case of drugs, quality is a matter of such supremely essential importance. In such cases it may well be that a system of limited tenders would be preferable. Although the present contract binds us for two years, I intended, before the hon. Gentleman gave Notice of this Motion, to see whether, in the future, it would not be more advisable to proceed upon the principle of limited tender in regard to this class of contracts.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I hardly think the Committee will accept the speech of the Under Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) as a satisfactory explanation of the circumstances under which this contract was given. In, the first place, the Prison Commissioners invited public competition and open tenders, and the hon. Gentleman says that they ought to have adopted the system of limited tender—that is, allowing only a certain number of contractors to tender. That is, no doubt, a wise course in certain cases; but you cannot go back now. You offered this tender to public competition. You put this contract up to public competition by public advertisement; and unless you are prepared to show that these gentlemen whom my hon. Friend (Mr. Picton) has alluded to were disqualified, or incapable, or incompetent of supplying pure drugs, I maintain you are bound to accept their tender, if their tender was the lowest. It is quite certain that any large Corporation or private concern in the country would, under these circumstances, have accepted the lowest tender. Now, I want to know whether the tender accepted was the tender of gentlemen who had previously contracted?
    MR. STUART-WORTLEY: If the right hon. Gentleman will give me Notice of that Question I shall be very happy to answer it.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER:If the Home Office know nothing about the matter I have nothing more to say.
    MR. MATTHEWS: The responsibility of the Home Office for the acts of the Prison Commissioners must surely be limited, as far as a practical Ministry is concerned, to the period when that Ministry was in Office. The Ministry of the day is not responsible for what

    1479
    the Prison Commissioners do under the rule of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman himself was a Member. I think the right hon. Gentleman's questions should be addressed to the person who represented the Home Office when this tender was accepted.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: The Home Secretary has favoured me with a reproof which I accept with all humility; but I venture to tell him that he has completely misapprehended the Constitutional position of Ministers in this House with reference to the Estimates. This matter has nothing whatever to do with this Government, or with that Government. The Home Office, as representing the Prison Commissioners, is bound to furnish all information requisite respecting the action of the Prison Commissioners. Now, this has not been sprung upon the right hon. Gentleman without Notice. The Motion has been on the Paper two or three months, and there has been ample opportunity for obtaining information. Questions have been put in this House, and the charge, whether just or unjust, whether fair or unfair, is that this contract was not properly given out. I do not charge the Home Secretary with any responsibility in the matter. It would be absurd to charge him or his Predecessors with any responsibility; but what this Committee wants to know in voting money to the Prison Commissioners, whom, as I say, the Home Office represents, is, whether that money has been fairly, properly, and impartially spent? It would be absurd to introduce anything of a political character into this matter. The Prison Commissioners are a permanent body; they do not change with the Government. The Home Office is the responsible medium through which they communicate with the House; but I gather that really nothing is known by the Representatives of the Home Office as to the circumstances under which this contract was given out. We have these facts before us—that there was open tender by public advertisement, and that the tender of respectable traders who have a certificate from one of the most competent medical men in London as to their competency to discharge this contract tendered for the supply of drugs for £95 less than the firm whose tender was accepted, and
    1480
    yet their tender was refused. I think the Committee is entitled to some better information than that afforded by the Under Secretary.
    MR. LAFONEThe right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) is entirely incorrect in supposing that, it is necessary to take the lowest tender.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Not necessary, but usual.
    MR. LAFONE: Generally, in the case of public tenders, a public body guards itself by saying it will not necessarily accept the lowest tender, or any tender. The question is whether such a safeguard formed part of the advertisement issued in this case or not.
    DR. CLARK: I consider that the reply of the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) is very unsatisfactory. In a matter of drugs it is very easy indeed to test the quality by analysis. Materials sent in may easily be sent down to Somerset House, who will soon say what they contain. That is one of the points in which one ought to have open competition. It is easy enough to show what we want, and if articles are not supplied accordingly they can be refused.
    MR. A. M'ARTHUR: The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bermondsey Division of Southwark (Mr. Lafone) is quite right in saying that it does not invariably happen that the lowest tender is accepted; but where you have two tenders from equally respectable men, and whore one tender is 7½ per cent lower than the other, it is certainly the duty of the Government to accept the lowest tender. I maintain that the firm of Messrs. Richardson and Co. is of the very highest respectability. Indeed, my hon. Friend (Mr. Picton) and myself have testimonials showing that nothing could be higher than the commercial standing of the Company in question. As my hon. Friend stated, there is no intention to blame the present Government in the matter. I think that my hon. Friend, in bringing this matter before the Committee, has discharged a public duty. I do not wish to attach blame to either one Party or the other; but I know that in many cases a similar course has been pursued to that pursued in this case. As guardians of the public purse, it is our duty

    1481
    to investigate all these cases, and see as far as possible that justice is done.
    DR. TANNER: As a medical man, I agree that in the matter of drugs it is important that public bodies should not at all times necessarily accept the lowest tender. What they should aim at is the obtaining of the best article. That is all important; and, accordingly, I heard with a certain amount of misgiving and doubt the remarks which emanated from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton). But then, on the other hand, in this matter you invited open tenders, and I presume you wanted to get the best article. One well-known firm—a firm which is backed up by the testimony which the hon. Member has in his possession—notably by the testimony of Dr. Treaves, of the London Hospital—sent in the lowest tender, but it was refused. I therefore maintain that some reasons should be assigned why the offer of Messrs. Richardson and Co. was rejected. Up to this no reason has been given. We are here to exact a reason. I sincerely hope that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews), who is in charge of this Vote, does not give us some reason why this tender was not accepted, and why the country is put to the additional expense, hon. Members opposite will lend their voices to the remonstrances which this Committee ought to make, and for the demand of the reduction of this cost by the amount of the extra expense to which the country has been put. I trust the Government will afford us some further information. If they do not, my hon. Friend (Mr. Picton) ought certainly to go to a Division.
    SIR EDWARD J. REED: I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Picton) will not divide. I entirely sympathize with the object he has in view; but it is as well that the hands of the Government should not be tied in a matter of this kind. I know that great pressure is put upon the Government Department in the matter of the acceptance of contracts, and I know of many cases in which the Public Service has suffered enormously by the acceptance of the lowest contracts. Cases have come under my observation in which tenders were offered more than 50 per cent below other tenders for the same contract. I am perfectly persuaded that the lowest tender is often accepted
    1482
    to the great disadvantage of the country. All we ought to require the Government to do is to act thoroughly and impartially in the matter of contracts. Having regard to my experience of the acceptance of contracts, I certainly cannot vote for the reduction of the Vote which my hon. Friend (Mr. Picton) has proposed.
    MR. PICTON: If I had heard that an error had been made, and that steps would be taken to guard against its recurrence, I should be more disposed to withdraw my Amendment; but, again and again, it has been insinuated that there was something defective in the tender furnished by Messrs. Richardson and Co. There has been no evidence of that kind whatever. The firm in question have supplied with drugs the London Hospital, the Cheltenham Hospital, and the Worcester, Southampton, West Bromwich, Northampton, Leicester, and other large hospitals, and they are continually doing so; and it is very hard indeed that it should be imputed that they do not supply pure drugs. As I have said already, this is not a political matter, and the present Government is not concerned in it. I really think I must carry my Motion to a Division.
    MR. WOODALL: No one can find fault with my hon. Friend (Mr. Picton) if he presses his Motion to a Division, as a protest against the way in which this tender for drugs was accepted. But I am not quite sure whether he has quite appreciated the undertaking given by the Home Office to inquire into this matter. This matter involves a very small amount, but a great principle is at stake. The question whether contracts should be open to public tender, or to limited tender, has engaged the attention of a Departmental Committee on which I have lately served. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) has repudiated the suggestion that the quality of the goods of Messrs. Richardson and Co. was inferior to the goods supplied by the successful tenderer. I trust the Home Office will furnish us with the name of the successful tenderer, and will even go further, and will say that they will give the reasons why the successful tender was preferred to that of Messrs. Richardson and Co., which was very considerably lower.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: It seems to me that the most reasonable course for my hon. Friend (Mr. Picton)

    1483
    to pursue would be to withdraw the Amendment at present, and listen to any statement which can be made on Report by the Government. Evidently the Government do not quite know the facts with regard to this case. By Report, which I presume will be taken tomorrow, they may become possessed of the facts, and I venture to suggest that we should have samples of the drugs placed in the Tea Room, in order that any Gentleman who is so desirous may test their quality.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 114: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 412.) [11.50 P.M.]
    Original Question again proposed.
    DR. CLARK: I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £1,000, and in doing so I desire to call the attention of he Committee to the present position of the surgeons employed in the prisons belonging to different parts of the Kingdom. The salaries paid to the prison surgeons in England are very fair; they begin at £400 and £500 per annum, and are increased to £600; but in Scotland the salaries to the same class of medical officers begin at £200, and increase only to £300 per annum. Then, if you take the prison surgeons in England, in the larger prisons, where they begin at £400 and increase up to £600, and take those in Scotland, say at Glasgow, where the salaries begin at £230 and increase to £300, you will find that the Scotch prison surgeon has more prisoners under his care than is the case with any of the English prison surgeons who begin with twice his salary. I am aware that under the head of this Vote I cannot do anything to increase the salaries of the Scotch prison surgeons; but I think the matter at least worthy of consideration on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews); and I would further point out that, even taking the case of the Irish prison surgeons, they are much better off than the Scotch, because many of the prison surgeons in Ireland begin with a salary of £350, and go on increasing up to £400 per annum. Then, if we take the case of the assistant surgeons in the English prisons, they begin at a salary of £250, which is increased up to £350, so that
    1484
    here the assistants got £500 more per annum at the commencement than is paid to a full surgeon in Scotland, and finish with £50 more than the maximum salary of the Scotch officer. Now, I should like to point out what is the class of men who receive those appointments in England——
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Caithness cannot be allowed to continue the discussion of a specific reduction of the Vote after a subsequent part of it has been reached. Besides, the hon. Member is moving a general reduction of the Vote, and, at the same time, confining his observations to the case of the prison surgeons' salaries.
    DR. CLARK: I would only call your attention, Sir, to a previous ruling. I understand that where we have items from A to Y, and some hon. Member rises to move an Amendment on Y, but another hon. Member interposes, and says he intends to move the reduction of; an item under a previous letter, it has been the practice to stop, and allow the previous question to be discussed. As, however, I understand you to rule that if Y is begun, all the intervening items from A cannot be discussed, the only way in which the matter so passed over can be brought forward is on the Report of the Vote. I would, if that be in Order, propose to discuss the matter without making any Motion.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That would be another irregularity. If a particular matter cannot be moved, of course it cannot be discussed.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I was under the impression, when the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) commenced his remarks, that he was dealing with the subject which was then before the Committee.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member (Mr. Conybeare) had risen before, but had given way.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I was watching my opportunity, and had already risen once, but gave way under the impression I have stated; and I was quite taken by surprise when I found that the hon. Member for Leicester had passed on to a matter beyond the point then under discussion. The question is, what are we to do? There are some of us who think there are very important matters in connection with this Vote which ought to be discussed. For in-

    1485
    stance, I should like to ask the Government some questions in reference to the prison chaplains, and I should like to know whether I am debarred by what has taken place from mentioning the matter?
    THE CHAIRMAN: That bears on Item D also, and, consequently, cannot be gone into now.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I should like to point out to the Committee that in a number of these prisons a large number of men are confined, and many of them for a considerable term of years. Of course, the Prison Authorities can have no jurisdiction with regard to the length of the sentences under which prisoners are kept in confinement; and the point with which I am concerned is, not the length of the sentences, but the administration of the prison discipline by the Prison Commissioners in the prisons that are covered by this Vote. I think it will be admitted that the treatment of the prisoners is a very important question, and the discipline maintained in our prisons is important in more respects than one. With regard to the prisoners themselves, it is of the first consequence that the prison treatment should not only be punitive and deterrent, but that it should also be of such a nature as is likely to improve rather than to deteriorate the character of the persons so confined. Now, it so happens that in most of our gaols the prisoners are put to work which is of a distinctly lowering and brutalizing kind. If these prisons were wisely administered, if the Prison Commissioners would turn their attention to such means of occupying the prisoners as would cause their terms of sentence to work in a manner that would be beneficial to their character, in that case the general community would be benefited by the prison system, instead of being injured, as is now the ease. What, let me ask, is the result of the present system? You take a man and sentence him to a long period of imprisonment, in the course of which you deal with him in such a way as to convert him from a man into an animal. You first of all lock him up all alone for a long time, die amount of time he is allowed to spend in the society of his fellow men being cut down to the very smallest quantity, and while he is thus kept in prison he is set to work of a disciplinary
    1486
    character which is only calculated to degrade rather than to elevate his character. The occupation of picking oakum, which is persistently pursued in many of our prisons, and is frequently pointed to in the Reports of the Prison Authorities as a rumunerative employment—though, as I regard it, of a very bad description—is one the very nature of which is calculated to degrade the man who is employed at it, as a large number of prisoners are for months and sometimes for years. When a prisoner goes out of gaol and into the world, after seven, 10, or it may have been 14 years of such employment, he not only finds that his place in society is gone or filled up by someone else, but that most of his friends are dead or removed, that there is scarcely anyone who knows him, and that there seems to be no room for him in the busy work-a-day world outside the prison, and he goes about even a worse man than when he was first put within the prison walls. He may, previously to his arrest, have had some knowledge of and some kind of aptitude for industrial occupations; but by putting him to the inferior kinds of employment, to the merely animal kind of work he has had to perform in prison, you have brutalized and effaced in him everything of a higher character which belonged to him in the first instance. This is not only a cruel wrong to the man himself, but it is also a bad thing for society; because men of the class I am speaking of, when they come to find that there are no avenues open to them for the exercise of some honest avocation, drift almost from the necessity of the case into the recognized criminal class. Therefore, I hold that so far as it tends to bring about such results your prison system is a faulty one, and I may add that I believe it to be faulty because the Prison Commissioners do not administer it with that humanity and intelligence which I hope jet to see manifested in the carrying out of so important a matter. I admit that, as compared with our British prisons of some 50 or 70 years ago, the prisons of the present day are satisfactory to a certain extent, because in former days they were simply dens of the most inhuman barbarism, and since then you have somewhat ameliorated the condition of the inmates of your prisons. But inhuman sentences of 20 years' penal servitude, which I believe

    1487
    you have no moral right to inflict, are still in force, though at the present moment we have no right to discuss that subject; but the conduct of those who regulate the punitive treatment of the prisoners is another consideration. I say that the punitive treatment of these men is radically wrong, inasmuch as there is nothing in the nature of it to reclaim them or elevate them into a better nature, and to give them a chance when they are liberated from prison of making a fair start in some honest mode of life. Therefore, I say, you injure these men and degrade them by your prison treatment, and you also injure society by rendering it almost hopeless that any good can come of the system you adopt; and what is the consequence of it all? People outside, instead of putting any trust in the results of your English prison discipline, avoid having anything to do with a man whom they know to have been imprisoned for any length of time; whereas in Ireland, some years ago, in our intermediate prisons, so judicious was the system that the men who had been subjected to it were in demand almost before they came out of gaol, this being because the discipline was so superior to that which is adopted in England. I believe, however, that this system of discipline in Ireland has not been followed out as it might have been; but certainly I may say, with regard to the English prisons, it is true that no one who can help it would think of employing anyone who had undergone any lengthened period of imprisonment. I should also have liked to discuss the treatment of untried prisoners; but I find that the money applicable to this purpose is in the hands of the Local Authorities, as distinguished from the Imperial. It appears to me that this would have been more in Order on the Vote on which a sum was taken in aid of the Local Authorities; and as you, Sir, have ruled that it would be out of Order to go into that, and as the Vote I have referred to seems to be the only one on which the matter could be properly brought forward, I will not attempt further to pursue the point. Even if I had permission, believing it would be out of Order, I should not now avail myself of it. There is, however, another point I should like to ask a question about, and that is in reference to the fine fund, which is formed from the fines
    1488
    levied by stoppages from the officers' pay, and is appropriated to the advantage of the general staff of officers; but as that amount is deducted under Sub-head D, and if we wanted to discuss Sub-head O it would be difficult to do it, because Sub-head 0 is connected with Subhead D, and we must not deal with Sub-head D because it comes before Sub-head G, which has been already dealt with. This system of taking the Votes is, to say the least of it, very embarrassing. Well, Sir, the next point I wish to urge is this—that in many prisons the prisoners are employed in certain industries. There is, for example, the industry of mat-making. Now, it appears to me that this system of employment is very unfair to the non-criminal industrial classes outside the prisons. It does not seem to be right that the Government penal establishments should be brought into open competition with the outside industries. The Government utilize the labour of the prisoners in the production of mats and other articles, which are manufactured really at a loss, regarding them from a commercial point of view, and which are sent into the market to compete with the productions of private traders, and to the distinct detriment of the private traders. However desirable it may be to work our prisons on an economical plan for the benefit of the community, it is not fair to subject private industries to this sort of unfair competition. I think, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would do well to inquire whether, if it be necessary to pursue the business of mat-making in our gaols, it would not be wise to take steps to prevent the unfair competition to which I have referred. I may add, in connection with this mat-making question, that it is currently reported that certain favoured persons are allowed to appear on the Home Office list, or, rather, the Prison Commissioners' list, and to buy these cheaply-produced articles from the Government at very reduced prices—that is to say, there are certain privileged persons who are permitted to come in with a sort of right of pre-emption by which they are enabled to buy these things cheaper than anyone else. I say that if these mats are to be sold at all they ought to be sold openly, and the system of privilege which at one time prevailed, and which I am told does pre

    1489
    vail still to some extent, is only another among the many instances of the unfair way in which things of this kind are managed. I will not now take up any more time, but will only add that I have mentioned these points because I thought they were matters which well deserved the attention of this Committee.
    MR. CONYBEARE: There are one or two things I should like to refer to, although we have been jockeyed out of our right to discuss some of the points that might be raised on this Vote. Perhaps I ought not to say we have been "jockeyed." I do not mean that, and I am aware that we shall have the opportunity of dealing with those matters which have had to be passed over when we come to the Report. There are, however, other matters arising upon this Vote with which we are at liberty to deal—certain points which I desire to bring forward in addition to what has been mentioned by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). I observe here an item the figures of which are set down in various sums, and, in some cases, large sums, for the reconstruction and improvement of prisons. There is one sum of £32,000, another of £25,000, and so on. I do not take these particular sums in these particular cases as objectionable, because, no doubt, large prisons like those at Bristol, Norwich, and Nottingham require considerable alteration or improvement from time to time. But there are a large number of small prisons in this country upon which very large sums of money have also been expended. I refer particularly to the prison at Dorchester. Now, that prison is one in which the average number of prisoners is only 90, and yet the sum of £30,000 has been expended during the last two years in rebuilding and reconstructing that place. When we see all these prisons scattered about all over the Kingdom with large staffs of officers attached to each, the question naturally arises, is it not possible to do more than has been done in the way of consolidation? There are, doubtless, a number of prisons in which the average number of prisoners is less than 100, and in which a chief warder has to do the business of a Governor, and I suppose that some expense is saved under that head; but what I desire to suggest is, that in these cases a good deal of expense might
    1490
    be saved through reducing the number of prisons by consolidation and removing the prisoners from some of them altogether. Lot us take the case of the Bodmin Prison. Bodmin is within a short distance of Plymouth, and when we find that there are only 40 prisoners confined there, I think that that number might as well be taken care of at Plymouth as retained at Bodmin with a separate establishment. This is only a suggestion; but I think it worthy of consideration on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who must see that the large expenditure in connection with some of these small prisons holding only 30 or 40 prisoners is altogether out of proportion to the necessities of the case. In connection with the question I desired to raise, but which I was precluded from going into, in reference to the prison chaplains, I shall have something more to say when we reach the Report stage of this Vote. There is, however, another matter in regard to which I wish to make a suggestion. It is well known that when prisoners are about to be tried they are exposed to a system which is explained in a letter from Mr. Horsley, who shows that these poor creatures are fleeced and robbed by the legal touts—the prison solicitors—who infest the purlieus of our gaols. It is stated that some of these poor men, and women too, who have got into difficulties, will raise any amount of money they can, by borrowing from their friends, or using up all the hard-earned savings they may have got together, for the purpose of feeing a solicitor for the defence at the time of trial, and Jin many cases I know that they have to pay a great deal more than they could be properly called on to pay for such a purpose; and very often the whole business is only a sort of specious swindling. I am not now referring to any particular cases, but merely to what I believe to be a general practice—a practice that operates very prejudicially against the interests of the prisoners; because when they come out of prison after, perhaps, a very short term of imprisonment, they have not only denuded themselves of any savings they may have made, but they are also, in all probability, in debt to their relations for money which they have borrowed to pay these touts for what purported to be a defence, but which they would have been just as

    1491
    well without. The suggestion I offer to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is as to whether some mitigation; of this nuisance might not be effected by placing in the different prisons a list of I the fees required for special services, such lists to be hung up either in the cells or in some conspicuous place in the gaol, so that the attention of the prisoners may be drawn to them? in this way all the prisoners who may need legal assistance would be able to get it without being fleeced to the extent they are at the present time. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me an answer now; but if he is not I will repeat the question on a future occasion. I may add that I have not brought this matter forward for the purpose of ventilating a supposed grievance. I have discussed it with the Governors of some of our prisons, and they have assured rue that what I have described constitutes a real hardship. This is corroborated by what has been written in the public Press by Mr. Horsley, who probably knows as much about the subject as even the prisoners themselves. I believe that a real boon would be bestowed upon the unfortunate prisoners if some such suggestion as that which I have just made were acted upon. I do not suggest anything unreasonable in the shape of low fees being established; but I think it would not be difficult to draw up a reasonable and moderate scale, so that the prisoners might have the opportunity of knowing what are the proper fees and what are not. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give his attention to this matter, and that something may, before very long, be done with regard to it.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: I do not intend to go into the subject which the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has raised with regard to the way in which prison labour is utilized; but I would suggest that prison discipline in reformatories should be better attended to in our prisons and reformatories. I am afraid that the kind of labour which is enforced in most of our prisons is very degrading. I know of nothing that tends so much to degrade a man as when you compel him to perform a kind of labour which he knows to be of no use. As long as labour is useful it is elevating; but the moment it becomes simply a
    1492
    matter of force without being applicable to any good purpose it becomes very degrading and demoralizing. I cannot but think that most of our prison labour is both demoralizing and degrading; and although I admit that it has undergone a very great change for the better, I think it is still capable of great improvement. I think in Massachusetts they make this labour not a source of depression to the country, but rather make it tend to the advantage of the State. There this prison labour is worth more than it costs, and I need hardly say we have not got to that point yet. I think if the Government will give this question the attention that it deserves our prisons might be greatly improved.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I wish to draw the attention of the Government to the way in which money devoted by Parliament is expended in one or two of the Imperial convict establishments in the Colonies. The amount of money voted by Parliament has of necessity diminished year by year as the number of convicts is reduced; but the amount of money which it is necessary to vote for the administration of the small sum that is demanded for the maintenance of the convicts does not decrease in the same ratio; and, that being so, it seems to me an abuse that when the sum voted annually for the maintenance of these convicts in our Colonies is constantly decreasing, the sum for disbursing it should not also decrease. I notice with regard to these sums that in Western Australia the total amount to be disbursed is something like £5,000, and one officer receives alone £500 out of that for the purpose of paying this money. It seems to me it is an extremely easy task to disburse £5,000 a-year, and a luxuriant salary to receive £500 for doing so. The sum to be disbursed decreases every year, but the salary remains the same. Then, with regard to the sum to be expended in Tasmania, the total amount is £2,690, and the amount paid to the person who distributes that amount is something like £400 a-year, of which this country pay half and the Colony pay half, whereas in Western Australia we pay the large sum of £500. In New South Wales the total cost for the maintenance of the convicts is £558, and the salary of the paymaster remains at £150 a-year undisturbed. Then I

    1493
    find this extraordinary head, "The maintenance of invalids—paupers' children—and total expenses." I can understand all except that of the "paupers' children," and I cannot understand how it is possible for the Imperial Government to become liable for the maintenance of the children of those convicts who have been sent out there. I do not see how it is necessary to support these establishments, which, might reasonably be done away with. I do not understand the exact system of this administration in Australia, but it appears to me it must of necessity be a sham. It would be better to break up these establishments, and allow these men who are not convicts, in the ordinary sense of the term, to earn an honest living in the Colony, by which this country would be saved something like £10,000 a-year, and these men would be in a position to advance themselves, and their children would cease to be paupers.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Before we pass entirely from this Vote I would point out that we have not yet had a fair understanding with regard to Dover Harbour. I did not quite gather from the ton. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury how he was going to act. He has intimated that if we do not have a harbour at Dover there would be no necessity for this prison—that there is no work at Dover on which, these convicts could be employed. We are going to vote £5,000 this year, and I hope we shall have some assurance that no further sum will be demanded of Parliament until it is definitely settled whether or not there is to be a harbour or not. Hon. Gentlemen will understand what I mean, that there will not be a sum put down in the Estimates for next year, a portion of which will be expended because it is in the Estimates, and the Vote not taken until the end of the Session. That is why I say we ought to have some understanding that the hon. Gentleman will act upon the views he has himself expressed, and that no further money will be spent until we know whether the harbour is to be made, because it is very possible it may not be made.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I propose to act, so far as I am personally concerned, in accordance with the views
    1494
    I have expressed. I have already made a memorandum by which attention is called to this matter, and I shall take care to press upon those responsible the necessity of coming to a decision upon it. In my humble judgment it is necessary to arrive at a decision as to what shall be done, though I cannot say it may not be necessary to put something in the Votes next year, even though it may be decided not to go on.
    MR. HANDEL COSSHAM: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the Committee how long it will take to complete the prisons at present in progress?
    MR. JACKSON: The only approximate date I can give is this. The total estimated cost is £58,000, of which £44,000 has been expended; £5,000 is now taken, and if we go on expending at the rate of £5,000 a-year it would take nearly three years to expend the remaining £15,000.
    DR. TANNER: Has the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary taken into consideration the wishes of the people of the district? The people in and about Dover, to my certain knowledge, are altogether antagonistic to this method of employing convict labour. History repeats itself, and you will find the same thing has occurred in other places before Dover Harbour was contemplated. There is a subject I have spoken about in this House before now, and that is Haulbowline Docks. There you had convict labour; but what was actually the state of the case? By convict labour you were taking the bread out of the mouths of the local tradesmen, and you are doing that to-day. [A laugh.] The noble Marquess the Member for the Brixton Division of Lambeth (the Marquess of Carmarthen) may laugh, but let him go down to Dover and laugh at the tradesmen, there; if he does, he will come back with a different smile upon his face. The British working man must be taken into account at the present time. If you must employ convict labour, go and employ it where you will not compete with the ordinary and legitimate English workman. I am speaking now for your own English workman, and it is hon. Members on that side of the House, who have recently taken places in this House, who should speak up for the English workman; but they do not. And what is the result at the present

    1495
    time? You have got people starving, and in and about Dover you are employing convict labour and taking the bread out of the mouths of these men. Is that right? You are passing through a time of depression; will you pay attention to it, or will you not? [A laugh.] It is very easy to laugh. The hon. Member may laugh, but we are accustomed to his laugh. It is all very well where there are convict stations in places like Dartmouth, which I have visited; but there you do not come into contact with an industrial population. But in and about Dover it is different. If you converse with the people of the country you would find it is the general opinion that you should employ convict labour in some district where it really will not interfere with the industrial products of an industrial population. I have heard these complaints cropping up again and again in and about Queens-town, where we had a large convict settlement at Spike Island. They call it Port Westward now; but it was Spike Island, and Spike Island it will remain to the end of the chapter; the flavour of convicts hangs over it still. Again, in regard to the Cove of Cork, the people were greatly dissatisfied at the way in which convict labour was employed, and the poor unfortunate people in the district allowed to starve. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman who happens to look after this Vote to pay attention to the demands of the tradesmen, the artizans, and labourers in and about Dover, and try, as far as he possibly can, to employ the convicts somewhere else, and give the honest and hard-working English artizan the chance of earning his daily bread.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise to move the reduction of this Vote by £5,000. I ventured to offer some remarks upon what I believe a very important and general question—the general treatment of our prison population; and I also referred to the question of industrial work in prisons as competing with free labour outside. Further, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) asked for information on certain substantial points—namely, the administration of the convict service in another hemisphere, and pointed out that although the amount to be administered got to be very small, and was decreasing year by year, the
    1496
    annual charge for administration, was maintained at an obviously unnecessary sum. The right hon. Gentleman has remained seated in spite of this, and I am surprised to see that neither himself nor the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department have thought it worth while to allude to any of the points submitted to the Committee. I presume that is because we are told on page 237 that the Prison Board is now under revision—that everything is in a state of chaos in regard to the practical administration of prisons. But the fact is that these Estimates were framed now about 10 months ago, when the Board may have been under revision; but there has been abundance of time for complete restoration of the Board. Whether the Board has been revised and fully constituted I do not know.
    MR. MATTHEWS: What Board?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The Board the Vote is concerned with, the Prisons Board, which is under revision, as the Vote itself says. I do not know whether it is revised and reconstituted; but, at any rate, whether it is or not, the Home Secretary is responsible for the Vote to this House, and also for the question of the general treatment of prisoners in these prisons, indirectly I admit, but still responsible, and in order to save time I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £5,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £503,018, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Arthur O' Connor.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I was only waiting until the close of the discussion, when I could answer all the points at one and the same time. I really think at this period of the year, and at this hour of the night, it is hardly incumbent upon me to enter into the large subject of prison discipline. I am perfectly aware of the views enunciated by the hon. Member and by others, that when you catch a thief you are immediately to set about reforming him in order to make him into a good member of society—that is a growing belief, and I do not dissent from it. The question of the employment of prisoners is a difficult one. Some hon. Members say they

    1497
    ought to be employed in a better manner than they are at present, and that the prisons should be made self-supporting; others say that you should not under any circumstances enter into competition with any free industry outside the prisons, and those two views are certainly incompatible. If you are not to compete with outside industries you cannot make prisons pay their own way. These subjects are very interesting, but upon this Vote the Committee would hardly expect me to go into them and announce any new plan. Since the year 1837 the number of prisons have been reduced from 115 to 60, so that not bad work has been done in the time, and I think we have almost reached the limit. We have done great things, and the Committee will see we have reduced this Vote by something like £6,000 altogether, and where it is possible we are making still further reductions. Then the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) complained about the charges for Imperial convicts and paupers in our Colonies. That is a fixed and diminishing charge which does not depend on the Government of the day. That charge is guided by fixed rules, rules that were laid down between the Colonies and the Mother Country in 1874, by which certain allowances were made in respect of the children of original convicts who had been discharged as Imperial convicts, in a condition in which they were unable to earn their own living, and these charges, or what is called the maintenance of Imperial convicts in the Colonies, were matters of agreement. These are all matters of agreement between the Mother Country and the Colonies, and are fixed charges, and the hon. Member will see that instead of being an increased charge it is a diminishing charge.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I said they were diminishing.
    MR. MATTHEWS: It is a charge out of the control of the Government, having been settled by agreement. Then the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall (Mr. Conybeare) talked about the taxation of prisoners' bills of costs. That really is a matter which should be done in the Law Courts rather than by the Commissioners. I think myself a prisoner ought to be able to bring in his bill for the taxation of his costs as well as anyone else; but
    1498
    that is not a matter that concerns the Prisons' Commissioners.
    DR. TANNER: Before the right hon. Gentleman has altogether finished might I ask whether the number of prisoners employed at Dover is increasing or not, because it is merely with the view of trying to improve local labour that I speak up for the unfortunate people about Dover? I want to know whether the number of prisoners is on the increase or the reverse? I wish to know the actual state of affairs during the last two years, whether you intend to increase the accommodation there, and to turn it into a large convict station for the purpose of doing away with local labour? I want an answer to that question.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: In regard to the explanation given just now as to the annual charges for convicts, in the Colonies, the charge of disbursing the sum remains the same as I stated; but I made a mistake with regard to the Tasmanian charge. For administering the sum of £2,690 per annum the charge on the Imperial Exchequer is £400 a-year. I thought this country paid £200 and that the Colony paid £200; but I find that is not so, and that the remaining moiety is charged to the Army Estimates. This is an extravagant charge that ought to be diminished.
    DR. TANNER: If I do not get an answer to my question I must move the reduction of the Vote.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): The number of convicts employed is 198. I shall be able to tell the hon. Gentleman on Report what steps are taken in regard to the increase, but at present there is not much. The difficulty is to find employment for any largely increased number. They are employed in the building of prisons.
    DR. TANNER: Is it intended to make an increase of prisoners with the object of employing them on local works?
    MR. STUART-WORTLEY: The prison will hold more than are there now.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (12.) £121,261, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.
    MR. S. SMITH: I should like to make one or two remarks on the subject of the Vote and the work that is done in the industrial schools; but I wish to call attention to one defect in the system, under which these schools are managed—namely, the want of oversight of the children after they leave the school. As the law stands at present, after the children leave the industrial schools they pass again under the control of their parents and guardians, and the law has no power to prevent them getting into the power of degraded parents and guardians. In a large number of cases the children committed to the industrial schools unhappily possess parents who are not fit to have the control of them, and they are in most cases committed to these schools for the very reason that their parents are not fit to have control over them. We get hold of these children, and out of kindness to them commit them to these schools and keep them for five years, giving them great care. We also give them a very much better education than the great bulk of the children who attend the private schools. But then what happens? After this large expenditure, amounting to about £100 per head, has taken place, at the age of 16 the children are discharged from the schools, and the State has no further control over them; they are permitted to leave the school without any further supervision, and there is no law that restrains the degraded parents and guardians from getting control of these children. I have taken some trouble in this matter, and it has been repeatedly represented to me by the managers of these schools that they have the greatest desire and anxiety to keep these children out of the hands of their unprincipled parents, who are on the watch for them in order to train them up to lie and to vice and crime of every sort. All sorts of means are resorted to by the matrons and superintendents of these schools to keep the young girls in particular out of the reach of the parents and guardians, but unhappily, in many cases, it is not possible to do so; and, as the law stands at present, these children are deliberately handed
    1500
    back to parents and guardians who have been the cause of their committal to and detention in the schools, and who will inevitably drag them back to the same state of vice and crime at which they were found at the time they were committed. That is the position in which we stand at present; and I say it is absurd—that we are pouring water into vessels full of holes, putting these children, so to speak, through a sieve and restoring them to the life from which we have taken them. One of the defects of English law is the overstrained regard we have for parental rights. Parents who have forgotten their parental rights we give full control over the well-being of their children, as if they were the property of the parents, though they may have abused their rights. I wish, therefore, to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to this matter. I believe in America the rule is that when children have been committed in this way to the State institutions the State takes the position of the parents and acts in loco parentis, and continues its State control over them to the age of 21. It does not permit them to return to the custody of their degraded relatives; but takes care of them in such a way that they will have a fair chance of success in the world afterwards. I hope that some attention will be given to this subject, because it is very important, and it applies not only to the children of industrial schools, but in an equal degree to children in pauper schools. The same evil has to be met in one case as much as in the other, and the same unfortunate results arise from having an overstrained regard for so-called parental rights. I would also advocate emigration for these children. They belong to classes which are, for the most part, demoralized. Their associations are bad. It is very difficult to prevent them drifting back to the old associations; and the kindest and most benevolent thing you can do is to give them a new start in life in the Colonies. If you take them away from the old life entirely, they will, in the majority of cases, do well; but let them go back to the old associations, and, in the large majority of cases, all your care will be thrown away. The industrial and reformatory school system is a very expensive one, and we cannot afford to lose all the money we spend on it. I

    1501
    believe that much better results would be obtained if the two points I have mentioned were attended to. First, the protection of the children from their degraded relatives after they leave the homes; and, secondly, the much more copious use of emigration. I wish, therefore, to commend these two points to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary.
    MR. BRUNNER: I want to support the appeal which has just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith). The education which is given in the reformatory schools has precisely the effect which such education ought to have. It makes the boys love work instead of hating it, and you lose a great deal if you allow the boys to return to old associations, where they are taught again to dislike work. The education given in a reformatory school is exactly the reverse of that given in an ordinary prison. Whilst it is exactly the dislike of work which sends a large proportion of the prisoners to gaol, the education which they receive in prison makes them dislike work more and more. In your reformatory schools you go on the right tack. You teach the inmates to like work, and you consequently do a great deal of good. Although it is a very late hour on a late day in the Session, I have been constrained to got up in order to press on the Committee the wisdom of devoting some attention to this subject. I must say that I believe our present prison 6ystem, with its long sentences, its degradation, and its absence of work, to be a great mistake.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I wish, Mr. Courtney, to call attention to an item in this Vote, and, if possible, to get some promise from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary with regard to legislation next Session. The subject I refer to is that of day industrial schools in Scotland. I may point out that the Vote is merely a Vote for England and for the City of Glasgow. Glasgow enjoys the power of establishing day industrial schools under a Local Act of 1878; but none of the other large cities in Scotland have the right to establish such schools. I see in his place the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sir Charles Dalrymple), who was a Member of the Day Industrial Schools Commission, and he
    1502
    will remember that that Commission reported in favour of extending to Scotland the power enjoyed by English towns of establishing such, schools, and that a Bill was introduced for the purpose. Unfortunately, that Bill, although it passed the second reading, did not succeed in getting further. My hon. Friend the Member for the St. Rollox Division of Glasgow (Mr. Caldwell) blocked it, and it could not, therefore, be further proceeded with. I understand, however, that the Government have in contemplation legislation on this subject for next Session, and I would earnestly urge on the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) that this particular matter should be taken up next Session. It is a matter which mainly concerns the five or six large towns in Scotland other than Glasgow. I do not say that they would all put in operation the powers which might be given to them; but, undoubtedly, the School Boards and other Public Authorities in large towns in Scotland are in favour of having those powers conferred upon them. Glasgow already enjoys them under the Local Act I have mentioned, and I think it very desirable that we should have some sort of assurance either that the Government will themselves introduce legislation on the subject, or that they will favour such legislation.
    MR. H. T. DAVENPORT: I wish to throw out one suggestion in order to meet the difficulty referred to by the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith)—namely, that of dealing with these children after they leave the schools. I believe that, as a rule, the children in industrial schools continue in the employments which have been provided for them, and do not go back to their parents unless their homes are suitable. Such care is taken of them by the managers that they are generally provided with work which enables them to gain an honest livelihood. The manager of an industrial school in my own county of Staffordshire is very strongly of opinion that much, good could be done if an arrangement could be made by which such boys as were anxious to go into the Army could be placed in some institution which, of course, would have to be established for the purpose and kept there for the two

    1503
    years which, elapse between the age of 16, at which they leave school, and that of 18. In this way you might gain, it is true, not a large number, but a certain number of most valuable recruits for the Army. These boys have generally got into trouble from the very fact that they are high-spirited and quick-witted, and they would, if they were properly trained, make the very best material for the Army. I have been asked to say this by one who has been a most successful school manager for many years, and who retains the greatest control over the boys after they have left. I am very glad of having the opportunity of putting his views before the Committee.
    MR. BRUNNER: I may say, Sir, that the same appeal has been made to me.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I wish, Sir, that we had more time to discuss this important question. I must say I am afraid it is not all managers of schools who are so well qualified to understand and so benevolent as to fill the position suggested by the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), and I do not think it would always do to substitute them for the parents. I conceive that even disorderly and wicked parents are entitled to have their own children to themselves. The hon. Member spoke of overstraining the regard for parental rights. Of course, I assent to that expression. The regard for parental rights must not be overstrained, but, at the same time, it must not be disregarded altogether. We must, I think, confine ourselves to the classes of criminal children in reformatories, and to the waifs and strays whom we send to industrial schools. If we go beyond them, we shall have to substitute a national system of guardianship of children for the present national system of education. In America I think there is a system in existence under which vicarious punishment can be imposed upon the parent where the child is led to do wrong and so to become a bad member of society. It is, however, I believe, only when the parent has been punished more than once for misconduct of this kind that a child is taken out of his or her hands. One of the provisions of the Juvenile Offenders Bill introduced this Session was to give the magistrates
    1504
    power, where children of tender age committed offences, to punish the parents if they thought that the parents ought to be punished rather than the children. I am, of course, acquainted with the views of the hon. Member (Mr. S. Smith) on the question of emigration, as he introduced a deputation to me on that subject at the Home Office a short time ago. The hon. Member will, I think, agree with me, however, that if emigration were given on too easy terms we might have a considerable section of the population seeking admission to these schools in order that they might be enabled to emigrate. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) respecting day industrial schools, I think it has been sufficiently shown that there is very much to be said in favour of that class of schools; and in a Bill which I have drafted, but which will not see the light until next year, I have endeavoured to carry out the views which the hon. Gentleman has just expressed. I am not aware that there are any other matters on which I need trouble the Committee on this Vote.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I think this is a Vote which might be reduced with advantage not only to the community, but to the industrial schools as well. Not only is there in this Department an Inspector and Assistant Inspector, a chief clerk, an examining assistant and a number of clerks, but there are also agents for collecting parental contributions—that is to say, a chief agent for the Provinces and eight sub-agents. And then there are allowances for the collection of these parental contributions. It seems to me that great economy might be effected if the collection of contributions from parents were thrown on the Local Authority instead of on the agents. The Local Authority is best able to determine the ability of the parent to meet the demand made upon him or her in respect of the child, and if my suggestion were adopted you might get rid of this very considerable staff, and so effect an economy upon the Vote. You might also make it to the advantage of the Local Authority to secure that the payment of the parent was punctual and complete by interesting the authority pecuniarily in the collection of the money. The money so collected could be taken as

    1505
    part of the local contribution in aid of the schools. In this way you would diminish the Vote; you would lighten the public burden; and you would, at the same time, facilitate and improve the local collection. What is the result of the present system? The Vote is more than it was last year. If you look at the Estimate of Receipts, you will see that, whereas last year £22,000 was received from the parents, this year a contribution of only £19,500 is anticipated, so that, whilst the Vote is increasing, the contributions from parents are diminishing. There is certainly room for improvement, and I think the improvement I have suggested would be a beneficial one.
    MR. BRUNNER: I can, from my own experience as a member of a Board of Guardians, confirm what the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has said. We feel it a very great hardship to have to pay for boys in reformatories, and I have found great difficulty in inducing my colleagues on the Board to send boys to reformatories on many occasions when I thought it would be our duty to do so. One of the objections is that we do not get the contributions paid by the parents, but that they go to the Government. We have to pay the whole of the cost of the boys, and yet the Government pocket the parents' contributions. I do not know whether I am quite correct as to the details; but I know that the Local Authorities do suffer in this matter, and I believe that if the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Donegal were adopted, both the State and the localities would derive benefit from it.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): It is undoubtedly a lamentable fact that, whilst the expenses of these schools increase, there is a steady falling off in the contributions of the parents. No doubt, this would be to some extent met by the suggestions made by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), and by the legislation which is contemplated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) a change will be made in the present system. It would, however, be over-sanguine for us to anticipate too great a result from that change, because I am sorry to say that
    1506
    the falling off in the contributions of parents is undoubtedly due to the depression of trade. I may point out to the hon. Member who last spoke that he must not lose sight of the fact that the Treasury does contribute, at certain fixed rates, to the expenses of maintaining children in these schools.
    MR. NOLAN: On referring to the details of the Vote, I find that the Chief Inspector receives a salary of £750 a-year, the Assistant Inspector £500 a-year, and the Examining Assistant, who, I suppose, assists in the examination of the children in the schools, £166. Now, this evening, in regard to the Land Registry Office, I found that one official had for 24 years been receiving a salary of £2,500 a-year for examining a few musty documents, and I suppose endorsing some of them, whilst here we have gentlemen who are engaged in work involving the flesh and blood and the souls of 24,046 children throughout the length and breadth of the land, and who only receive what, compared with the other salaries, must be regarded as a mere pittance. The way in which the salaries of the Inspectors are distributed is, I think, also worthy of attention. The Chief Inspector, after a limited experience, and, as far as I have been able to ascertain, with no preliminary training, receives £750 a-year, whereas the Assistant Inspector, who, as is evident from the figures given here, has spent some 25 years in the service, and who is a gentleman possessed of a considerable amount of zeal and ability, receives only £500, and the Examining Assistant is only paid £166. Now, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Estimates to try and remedy what can only be regarded as rather an unsatisfactory state of things. It is quite clear that there is room for very great improvement in regard to the payments made by parents. I find that the money receivable from parents of the children maintained in reformatory and industrial schools in England and Wales is £15,600. The amount receivable from parents in Scotland is not given by itself, but is mixed up with the contributions from Parochial Boards, the total being £6,500. If we take £3,000 as the sum receivable from parents in Scotland, the total amount receivable in Great Britain will be found to be

    1507
    £18,600. On turning to the last item I on page 251 of the Estimates, I find that tie commission paid to police officers for collecting the parents' contributions is £1,100 for the same period. From this I gather that the total contributions received from the parents amounted to only £11,000, as against the £18,600 receivable, so that there seems to be a loss of £7,600 in some way. It is quite clear, under these circumstances, that some reform is necessary in the method of collecting these accounts. With, regard to what becomes of the children trained in reformatory and industrial schools, I am sorry to say that I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) and the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Brunner). I am rather inclined to follow the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), and to say that the State should not step in between the child and the parent. If it were possible to do so, and to deprive the child of all that affection which it may be supposed to have for the parent, no matter how degraded, the child would not, I think, in future life be everything that people would wish him or her to be. A child without any feeling of affection or regard for its own parent would be a sort of monstrosity. There is one point which I have not heard mentioned in connection with this subject, and which I think might receive the attention of the Government. At present, reformatory boys, who are trained at considerable expense by the State, are not eligible for admission to the Navy. Gentlemen who have been on board reformatory ships must have noticed that, in point of physique and discipline, the boys ought to make splendid material for the Navy; and yet it is a matter of fact that a boy who has had three, or five, or seven years' training in one of the reformatory ships, and who wishes to join the Navy, is precluded from doing so. I suppose the reason is that the character of Her Majesty's Navy is too high, and that one of these poor reformatory lads, if he joined one of the vessels of the Navy, might lower the character of the sailors with whom he came in contact. I should have thought that, from what I have seen myself of the conduct of sailors on shore, and from what we hear of their proceedings in foreign parts when a
    1508
    Dumber of them land together, it would be impossible to lower their character. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Withdraw!"] I have nothing to withdraw. It would be impossible to lower their character by any association of that kind. Certainly it does seem strange that the boy who is not good enough for Her Majesty's Navy is quite good enough to go to some civil employer, and perhaps to take a position of responsibility with him. With regard to the Army, I believe that there is nothing to prevent either industrial school or reformatory school boys from becoming soldiers. I should quite concur in what has been said as to the training received by the children in these schools, if the children could always be kept in similar institutions; but I question very much, after some experience I have had, whether the training fits them for the lives they have to lead afterwards. I am myself of Mr. Cobbett's opinion, that people who have to live like ordinary members of society ought to be trained up from infancy in such a way as to fit them to occupy the position they will hold in society; and consequently I am in favour of an extension of the system of day industrial schools. No matter how humble a home may be, no matter even how vicious the parents may be, I believe that a child who is being instructed in a good school had better live at home with its parents than lead what may be called an unnatural life, and one which certainly cannot be continued afterwards. Consequently I think it is a great mistake, where we pay from 4s. to 7s. a-week for the maintenance of children in reformatory schools, and from 2s. to 6s. for industrial schools of the bastille character, we only pay from 6d. to 1s. for the instruction and maintenance of children in day industrial schools. I know it is a difficult question this of managing the waifs and strays of humanity; but I believe, after having thought the matter over for a number of years, and consulted with those who have had a longer experience than I have had, that the true solution will be found not in locking up 20,000 children in bastilles up and down the country, but in bringing them under control in day industrial schools. There may, of course, be some incorrigibles who cannot be treated in this way, and who it will be necessary to place under some very

    1509
    strong discipline; but I believe they will be limited in number; and certainly this House ought to set itself against the system of wholesale imprisonment of children for long terms. I know that certain hon. Gentlemen who take an interest in this subject will bring forward a formidable array of figures to show the small number of general convictions as compared with the time when there were no industrial and reformatory schools; but let me call attention to the fact that children taken up and imprisoned for five years in reformatory and industrial schools represent, of course, only one committal; whereas these children, before the establishment of the reformatory system, were ranging the streets without control, and might be committed any number of times—from 10 to 50—for short terms within the same period. Consequently, figures of the kind are very misleading, and mislead people who, with the best intentions in the world, fall into error. I hope before this Estimate is presented to the House another year that some steps will be taken to develop the day industrial school system, and to minimize the bastille system of the ordinary reformatory industrial schools.
    MR. FLYNN: Only a few-words. Some stress has been on the cost of the maintenance of children in reformatory and industrial schools, and while hon. Members were speaking I have taken the trouble to compare the amount with the cost of collection, and the figures are somewhat extraordinary. The receipts are set down at £13,700, and cost according to the statement set down here £2,300 to collect, or close on 20 per cent. This, it seems to me, is a most wasteful and vicious system, and the sooner it is reformed the better. A moment ago the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in giving one of the reasons why certain reforms to which the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) referred were not proceeded with, or, at least, steps taken in that direction, was in consequence of opposition offered to certain Bills by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner). Now, that opposition of my hon. Friend is not made to the merits of the Bills, but it is by way of protest against the vicious and demoralizing habit this
    1510
    House is falling into of conducting legislation of an important character at advanced hours of the morning.
    Vote agreed to.
    (13.) £22,549, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I see that this Vote includes a sum of £9,000 for new building alterations and additions to the asylum to accommodate lunatic prisoners transferred from Woking. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary what is the policy on which the Government intend to proceed in regard to lunatic prisoners? There are lunatic prisoners, or there wore, at places other than Broadmoor; it is now proposed to remove those from Woking; does that transfer apply to all lunatic prisoners in the country; is it proposed to concentrate all the lunatic prisoners there; and is it supposed that this sum of £9,000 will be adequate for the purpose, and does it include female prisoners as well as male?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY): Those removed from Woking are those who became lunatic during the carrying out of their sentences. Under the present system they are a special class, and having been criminal before they became lunatic are considered dangerous. For some time they have been kept in a particular wing of Woking Prison, and for a variety of reasons this has been found inconvenient, and gave rise to doubts whether legally they should or should not be visited by the Lunacy Visitors. On consideration whether or not the Lunacy Commissioners should be given L access to the prison, it was found that the subject was attended with inconveniences; and it was thought better, especially as Woking Prison was being reduced owing to the shrinking of the I convict establishment, to provide for an addition to Broadmoor, which must I come in time, and clear the whole of the male lunatic prisoners from Woking.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: These unfortunate people have a special claim to our consideration. I do not know whether they should be called criminals, though they may have s committed crime. This is a large Vote,

    1511
    and we might suppose that they are well treated; but it would seem that they are badly treated. We have the male attendants receiving £24 per annum for food allowance, while for the patients, including extras, the amount is £12 10 s. per head. Now, if it costs £24 to feed a male attendant, surely for the patients, including the extras for the sick, the cost ought to be at least as much; but the cost is about half. This is rather an extraordinary difference, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter. These are not criminals; they are unfortunate people who have to be shut up to prevent their doing harm to others; and they ought, at least, to be as well fed as their attendants.
    DR. CLARK: The average cost of lunatics in all parts of Scotland is £25, and we do not feed them very high either, so I do not see how it is possible to keep your criminal lunatics at £12 10 s. We are doing all we can to reduce the rate under this head, but cannot bring it below £25.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I would ask whether the system of chaining prisoners is recognized at Broadmoor? [Mr. MATTHEWS dissented.] I observe the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but I am afraid it is rather from his feeling of humanity than his knowledge of facts. At any rate, I know that in the Irish Asylum at Dundrum the practice was carried out to a horrible extent, so much so that men were chained for weeks and weeks together, day and night, until at last the matter was brought before the House, and I believe that some mitigation of the inhumanity took place. But can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if there are any rules in respect to the use of irons for prisoners, and what authority is it that enforces obedience to these rules?
    MR. MARK STEWART: Just one word in reference to the cost of £25 in Scotland. It includes everything, maintenance and attendance, and I do not suppose that food costs more than £12 10 s.
    DR. CLARK: I think there is some mistake, and probably the total charge would be about £35 or £38. But perhaps by Wednesday, when the question comes up on the Lunacy Bill, we can enter into the matter.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): I confess I was somewhat startled when the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) spoke of chaining the prisoners. I have no knowledge of such a practice. Of course, I perfectly understand when a man is violent some method of restraint must be adopted—the padded room, and so forth; but I am not aware that there is a practice of using chains. As to the dietary, I have the scale before me, and I need not trouble the Committee with details; but the scale seems fairly liberal, and it includes ¾ pint of beer per day for men and ½ pint for women. The allowance for the attendants is naturally somewhat higher in various ways—for instance, they have 1½ pint of beer, and little differences of that sort. It is the usual allowance for persons in that class.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: A pint of beer a day would not make a difference.
    MR. MATTHEWS: No; I only mention this as an example.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I would also point out that £12 10 s. per annum is 5s. a-week for the food of persons who are not criminal, and that does seem a small amount, especially when you allow just double for the servants. But I do not wish to dwell on this now, if the right hon. Gentleman will promise to look into the subject.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman said that the treatment of these prisoners is more humane here than in Ireland. I was anxious to elicit whether the use of chains was recognized. I am afraid it does exist to some extent, but not to the extent that some 18 months ago it existed in Dundrum.
    DR. TANNER: I would point out for attention the item for clothing these patients. Of course, you have about the same number this year as last; in both years it is the same, a total of £1,100. Now, I have been through many asylums in pursuance of a duty imposed upon me at one period of my life, though I have never had to look after criminal lunatics; but I have been through a great number, and this I will say—that either these people are extremely badly clad, or else there is something extremely wrong about this item, for I cannot for the life of me conceive how such a number of people can

    1513
    be clothed at such small cost. I can also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the small amount spent under Sub-head G. My hon. Friend near me takes exception to these people being called criminals, but I differ with him there; it is in consequence of criminal actions for which they cannot personally be made responsible that they have to be taken charge of by the State. Still, there is no reason why they should not have proper attention paid to them, and I must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman in charge on the small amount actually paid under Sub-head G. There is another small point to which I would call attention under Sub-head A. There you will find the charge for a chaplain, and a visiting Roman Catholic chaplain. Well, it is hard to go into these facts. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) has remarked that it is nearly impossible to touch bottom in these Votes and bring to light anything tangible. It is hard to do so. The hon. Member for Kennington Oval—[Laughter]—for Kennington (Mr. Gent-Davis; laughs in a round sort of way; but he would do better by assisting in the exploration of these details than by sitting laughing. In connection with this item you have two chaplains, the one, I presume, a member of the Established Church, and you have a visiting chaplain, a Roman Catholic. Now, at the bottom of the page you will find there is provision made for providing for a substitute for this resident chaplain while he is away on leave, and this is the sort of item I have failed to find in connection with any other Vote. Usually, whenever any professional man goes on leave, whether he is a minister of religion or a physician, whether he looks after the mental or physical ills of poor human nature, he has to provide himself a substitute during his absence, paying him from his own purse. But this does not appear to be the case in the present instance—the substitute is paid out of this Vote. Now, is this fair? Is any similar provision made for any other chaplain, Catholic, Wesleyan, Presbyterian, or any other chaplain paid by the State. I really think we ought to have some explanation of this item, which, in a very superficial way, I have endeavoured to call attention to. It is nearly impossible to point out all that is wrong in these
    1514
    Votes; I dare say there is a great deal that is quite right; but I am sure there is much that is quite wrong, if we could only find it out properly. I hope we shall have some explanation of this point I have raised, otherwise I shall be under the painful necessity of moving a reduction of the Vote.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I will try to save the hon. Member from that agony. This arrangement is a very old one, and originated in 1865, under a Secretary to the Treasury less vigilant than my hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson). The leave of absence is for three weeks, and the allowance for the substitute six guineas a-week, so that the amount is only 18 guineas. The chaplain has, I understand, been long in the Service, and it cannot fairly be reduced now; but it will ultimately be revised when the question of a new appointment is raised.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I would just ask the Committee to observe the note at the bottom of the page. The chaplain receives £400 a-year, and, in addition, he receives £390 from the Navy. Does that mean that he gets £790 a-year? He has, I suppose, been pensioned from the Navy, he being no longer capable of duties there.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): Pensioned after a certain number of years.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: That is to say, being in receipt of a pension of £390 for past services, he receives another appointment of £400.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I beg now to move, Mr. Courtney, that you do report Progress. It is 2 o'clock, and we have got through 13 Votes. No one can say that we have wasted time, considering the number and variety of the matters we have dealt with. We have got through Business, I think, with remarkable speed; and surely 2 o'clock is late enough for every reasonable Christian to be thinking of rest.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to Bit again."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I hope the Committee will not wish to report Progress now. The hour is late certainly; but, remember, the Session is late, and there remains much work to be done. I trust the Committee may find it convenient to go on for, say, another half-hour. That time will probably suffice for the discussion of the Science and Art Vote, for which, I know, many hon. Members have waited.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I certainly do not think that any hon. Member who has waited until now will find this a favourable opportunity of expressing his views on the Science and Art Vote. We are about to enter on a new Class of Estimates, and right hon. Gentlemen will admit that is not usual at this hour. As my hon. Friend has said, no one can assert that time has been wasted. We have concentrated our observations into the briefest possible space. [Cries of "Oh, oh !"] "Yes; I could myself have spoken 40 times as long as I did speak on each occasion. We have condensed our remarks, I say, and we have passed more Votes than on any previous occasion when we have sat to this hour, and it is too monstrous to ask us to embark on a new class of Votes at this hour, I trust my hon. Friend will persevere with his Motion again and again.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I may remark that the right hon. Gentleman has not been sitting here as we have. I am sure I have been paying the closest attention to each Vote ever since we began at 5 o'clock; while Ministers—drawing big salaries—have passed their time more pleasantly elsewhere. Then they return and say, at 2 o'clock, we must go on a little longer, because the work of the Session is in arrear. But it is not our fault that the Government chose to waste so much time over a Coercion Bill; we did not desire that; but if the Government chose to do that they must take the consequences of their folly.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I certainly cannot agree with all the remarks of the hon. Member, I have myself been here the whole evening since 4 o'clock. I am not in receipt of a large salary; and I
    1516
    feel that, under ordinary circumstances, at 1 o'clock in the morning—and especially on the 22nd August—we ought not to be asked to proceed with Votes in Supply. But I apprehend it is the desire of the House, as I am sure it is my own desire, to bring the Session to a close as soon as possible; and therefore I would suggest that we might take some uncontested Votes. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the unelessness of wrangling over this matter. My own feeling is that several Votes of a formal character may well be agreed to.
    MR. JAMES STUART: I stayed here this evening in the hope that the Science and Art Vote would come on at an early hour; but if we are now going on with more Estimates I do hope that, at any rate, this special Vote will be reserved till a time when it can be properly and adequately discussed. I merely speak with reference to that one Vote.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no objection to other Votes being substituted for the Science and Art Vote, if it is the wish of the Committee. But I cannot agree with one of the hon. Members who has spoken, when he says there has been no disposition to obstruct. The hon. Member must be aware that in many parts of the House there is now a great desire to got away, and I do think that greater progress might have been made. I have been in the House the whole evening, and no one has given more attention to his public duties than I have. I earnestly desire that progress should be made. I do not wish to waste time by entering into any dispute, and if hon. Gentlemen will be content to make progress with other Votes in Class IV. I shall be glad to agree to that. There are certain Votes as to which there could be no dispute whatever.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORs: Early in the Session the right hon. Gentleman assured the House, over and over again, that this Session the Votes should be taken in the order in. which they stand on the list. Later on, he agreed that there should be a certain amount of modification by which the Irish Votes would be taken separately.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: That was at the request of the Irish Members themselves.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Then I the Scotch Votes were to be separated from the rest.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: At the special request of the Scotch Members.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: And now the first Vote of Class IV. is to be taken out of its proper order.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: At the request I of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I think; it is very much to be regretted that the Government do not set a better example in keeping order in these debates. The whole of the original understanding has been completely lost sight of. Now, Sir, it is proposed that certain Votes should be taken out as unopposed Votes, in what order nobody knows. This has been tried before, and my experience is that it leads to lots of recrimination. I have never known any such arrangement to have satisfactory results. I think that the objection to voting public money at this hour of the night is a perfectly sound objection; and I shall consequently, on principle, divide against any further Vote that may be proposed to-night.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The only Vote, so far as I can see, which will probably be unopposed is Vote 9.
    DR. TANNER: No; certainly not. I shall oppose that.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: If the right hon. Gentleman will proceed with that, I shall have no objection. We always have a most interesting speech from the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London on the subject, and no doubt he has been getting one up for some time. But the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury himself gave us reasons why we should adjourn at this hour. He tells us he is excessively tired, as he has been hero the whole evening. I wish to give him to understand that, out of consideration for him as well as for ourselves, we intend to move to report Progress, and intend to persist in doing so.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Then we will Make a Division, in order to ascertain the opinion of the Committee.
    MR. CLARK: With references to this matter, if we are going to turn immediately after Vote 2 has
    1518
    been obtained, well and good. I wish to point out that there are a number of Bills sad other matters on the Orders of the Day to be dealt with, so that we can ill spare another half hour for Supply.
    DR. TANNER: I beg to assure the right hon. Gentleman that on one item there was not a word said, and that was the Millbank Vote, as to which there have been articles in the public Press. It was my intention to ask the attention of the Committee to that matter; but, at the instance of some of my hon. Friends here, I abstained from doing so, because it was thought that there had been sufficient discussion on that particular Vote.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 94: Majority 79. — (Div. List, No. 413. [2.15 A.M.]
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has now had an opportunity of seeing who are in favour of voting away millions at half-past 2 in the morning, and who are in favour of a proper examination of the Votes. Under these circumstances, I beg to move that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we cannot accept that Motion under any circumstances. He says we know now who are in favour of voting away millions at half-past 2 o'clock in the morning. Let me remind him that we also know now who are in favour of transacting the Business of the country, and who will give the facilities which are necessary for conducting that Business. I cannot resist the continued opposition of even only 15 Gentlemen at a quarter past 2 in the morning, and therefore I consent to report Progress. But I certainly cannot agree to the Motion that you leave the Chair. I consent to it, however, under protest against the waste of the time of the Committee at a period when it is a duty to make progress with the Public Business. Having recorded my protest, I consent now to report Progress.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I am sure that nobody has the smallest objection to the right hon. Gentleman recording his protest. We are very glad indeed that his protest has been recorded; for we also have recorded our protest against the scandalous practice of voting away millions of money after 2 o'clock in the morning. It is a practice we think it our duty to vote against on principle; we have done so in the past, and we shall continue to do so.
    SIR ROBERT FOWLER: If the hon. Member had been in the House when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was Prime Minister, he would have known that much larger sums had been voted away at a much later hour than this.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Two wrongs do not make a right.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I do not think anyone ever saw a Class completed after 2 o'clock, and a new Class of Civil Service Estimates commenced.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I will withdraw my Motion, on the understanding that the First Lord of the Treasury agrees to report Progress.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND) PROCEDURE (No. 2) BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question 18th [August],
    "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendment in page 2, line 4, to leave out from 'to,' to 'district,' in line 6, and insert ' the limits within which the sheriff has jurisdiction in criminal matters, whether by statute or at common law.'"
    Question put, and agreed, to.
    Subsequent Amendments agreed to.
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.