asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the charges furnished by the Inspector General of Constabulary for the maintenance of extra police in counties where no such extra police exist, and is he aware that the judges of assize have no option in such eases but to direct the grand jury in opposition to their wishes to fiat such presentiments; if so, does he contemplate any change in the law?

Sir. I am not aware that any county is charged for extra police where no extra police are sent into the county. Owing to the number of vacancies existing in the Constabulary throughout Ireland, it may, no doubt, happen that the number of men actually serving in some counties charged with extra force may be considerably less than the total nominal force of the county, including the nominal extra force. I think it possible that the law on the matter might be advantageously modified, and I had hopes that the Constabulary Bill which has just passed might have been utilized for dealing with it; but in the pressure of Business that was found impossible.

in rising to move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, facilities for the independent inspection of convict establishments should he provided; and that it is expedient that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty; praying that a Royal Commission he appointed to inquire into the discipline and management of these prisons,"

said, that in the course of the discussion on the Prisons Bill the subject had received a good deal of attention, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Home Secretary, intimated his opinion that further legislation was desirable in reference to convict establishments. The Prison Act of 1865 provided facilities for the independent inspection of county and borough prisons by visiting justices, and these facilities were retained by the aid of the Bill which had just received the Royal Assent; but no such provision existed in regard to convict establishments, either for independent inspection, or for placing any check upon the Home Secretary in framing rules for their management and discipline. After careful examination of the various Acts relating to those establishments, he had failed to find any provision for independent inspection, and it had happened from time to time that the complaints constantly made of cruelties inflicted upon convicts had been substantiated. He brought this question, therefore, under the notice of the House in the hope that the Home Secretary would take it into his consideration during the Recess, and introduce a Bill next Ses- sion to correct the defects of the present system. He had known instances in which memorials setting forth the complaints made by prisoners of their treatment had been suppressed, and had never reached the Home Secretary. He knew that the inspection of prisons by the borough justices had not in the past been always very perfect; but, at the same time, he looked upon the provisions of the Prisons Act of this year, requiring the justices to form themselves into prison committees for the purpose of inspection, as very valuable, and trusted that some similar protection would be afforded to prisons in convict establishments. Some impartial inquiry into the management and discipline of convict establishments was absolutely necessary, and a satisfactory result could only be arrived at after hearing witnesses. It was also very desirable that the inquiry should include the medical attendance and diet of the convicts. The medical officers of several convict establishments, while varying very much, some being far more indulgent than others, had reported the diet as too low for the labour required, and the question of the effects of labour on public works upon persons of different classes of prisoners had never been satisfactory dealt with. In particular, the medical officers at Pentonville and Portland had reported unfavourably of the health of the convicts. Hard labour was much more severe upon a man of education not accustomed to physical exertion than upon a working man, and the suffering caused by solitary confinement was much greater in the case of the former than that of the latter, as far as he could make out. But the Home Secretary had power to limit the extent of solitary confinement inflicted upon any prisoner; but he thought that some general rules, both on that subject and in regard to the number of lashes that might be inflicted, should be laid down by Act of Parliament. Prisoners employed upon public works should not be over-fed; but while their diet should be plain and coarse, they ought to have a sufficiency of bread; and it was not creditable to a Government that their prisoners should be kept upon such low diet as to be rendered liable to pulmonary disorders. Being generally men of low vitality, they felt very keenly the effects of an inferior diet. The points he wished to impress upon the House were, first, the necessity for an independent inspection of convict prisons by persons not under the influence or control of the Government, or in their pay. And, secondly, that an inquiry should be instituted by a Royal Commission into the discipline and management of those prisons. Very many complaints had been made of late years by prisoners of ill-treatment. In many cases the complaints had been substantiated, and in some instances the Home Secretary had been induced to interfere; but it was desirable that a Commission should inquire into the whole question, with a view to legislation next Session. He could not give credit to all the tales they heard about cruelties perpetrated in convict establishments, but they knew that in borough prisons cruelties of a very extraordinary character had occasionally been inflicted; and if, in the face of the independent inspection of visiting justices, such cruelties were possible, it followed that cruelties of the same nature were much more possible in convict prisons, which were entirely free from independent inspection of any kind, and in regard to which the Home Secretary was kept very much in the dark. In reference to the subject, he would refer the House to a letter which appeared in The Daily Chronicle under the head of "Experiences of a Turnkey," in which a case of exquisite torture was stated to have been witnessed by the writer in a provincial prison. A prisoner who had refused to sit for his photograph, on the ground that he had not been convicted, had his arms and legs bound tightly to the uprights of a ladder, and in that position was hoisted up by the warders against the walls of the prison, and left so until he fainted. On his recovery he was again hoisted up, and the same thing was repeated several times until he at last gave in. For 10 days afterwards the man was not able to comb his hair or to bend his arm. He (Mr. Parnell) could not say whether this statement was entirely true; but if even a portion of it was true, the Home Secretary ought to direct his attention to the system of inspection both of borough and convict prisons. In convict prisons a prisoner had no means of making his complaint known outside his prison walls. They were forbidden by the prison rules to complain to their friends, and if they made their complaint in a memorial to the Home Office, that document was not allowed to reach the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. On a former occasion the Home Secretary brought forward statistics in which a comparison was made between the death rate in convict prisons and that of the London population, with a view to show the healthiness of the prisons; but it was well known that a very large amount of the London mortality was among infants, and there were less deaths among the adult population. It was, therefore, not correct to draw such a comparison between a population containing a number of children and a number of adult persons. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving an Address for a Royal Commission.

in seconding the Amendment, said, that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) deserved much credit for the great attention which he had devoted to this subject, and the earnestness and ability with which he advocated independent inspection in convict prisons. He (Mr. Whalley) was aware from his own personal knowledge that great dissatisfaction existed with respect to the treatment of prisoners in some gaols. Take, for instance, the case of a convict to whom he had often referred, and who was now confined in Dartmoor. He had received communications from many persons discharged from that prison, but being unauthenticated he had not troubled the House with them, or even communicated with the Home Office. Those statements were most startling, and if true showed the existence of corruption and complicity among the prison officers, and presented an array of difficulties which rendered it almost impossible for any one wronged to obtain redress. The prisoner to whom he alluded was not allowed to make his treatment known to the public. His friends, when they visited him, were only allowed to see him in an iron cage and in the presence of a warder. If a man on whose behalf at least half a million of people had petitioned the House could be ill-treated by prison officials, what must be the condition of other unfortunate convicts who had no means of making their grievances known? His letters were tampered with, and he was not allowed to utter a word of complaint to his visitors. His treatment latterly had been more harsh than formerly, and it was therefore either too lax at one time or was too severe now. The Town Hall of Birmingham had been filled by persons who went there to listen to him (Mr. Whalley), and yet such an expression of public opinion was ignored by the Press. One would have supposed the Home Secretary would have desired to alleviate the painful anxiety of so many persons, and to compassionate their weakness by allowing access to the convict on the part of one of the jury, who lived in a condition of anguish because he believed there had been a miscarriage of justice.

called the hon. Member to Order, reminding him that he was frequently wandering from the Amendment he rose to second.

said, if he was not in Order, the warmth of his feelings on the subject must be his excuse. The hon. Member went on to complain that the Home Secretary had not paid any attention to the complaints of the person to whom he referred, and was proceeding to read a letter addressed by the convict in question to Mr. Guildford Onslow, when—

rose to Order, and pointed out that his conduct was not the subject of the Amendment before the Chair.

submitted that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as it illustrated the question before the House — namely, whether there ought to be an independent inspection of convict prisons—was a subject to which he was justified in referring. He contended that ample grounds had been shown why the House should adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath.

said, he would refer to an instance that had come under his notice, which ought to have influence with the House and the right hon. Gentleman. An application was made to him by Mr. O'Donovan Rossa to visit Chatham Convict Prison from the then Home Secretary (Mr. Bruce). An order was obtained, but with certain restrictions, and this order he refused, unless he was permitted to put questions to the prisoner as to his treatment. This was granted. With the late hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) he visited the convict in prison, several of the prison officials being present. A question was put to O'Donovan Rossa as to whether he had been manacled for 35 days with his hands behind his back, and being compelled to take his food in that condition, one hand being loosened. It was denied by the deputy governor and the turnkeys that he had ever been manacled for such a time and in such a manner; but the chaplain was forced to admit that he had seen the prisoner with his hands tied behind his back. A book that should have thrown some light on the circumstance was not produced, and finally, after a second visit, an inquiry was instituted by the Home Secretary, and the statement of O'Donovan Rossa was found to be quite true. He could but support the Motion, and all suspicion of ill-treatment would be removed if there was an opportunity allowed for prisoners to make their complaints known in convict prisons, as they would be in borough and county prisons by the Prisons Bill.

said, that all this was but a repetition of the discussion on the Prisons Bill, which had now happily become law. He regretted that cases were so often brought forward in that House which had not been sifted, and which could not therefore be denied. Let him take the case brought forward on a former occasion by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), who read a letter giving a description of cruel treatment in a prison close to London. It was not possible for the Secretary of State to give any answer to that charge at the moment. A full inquiry was, however, made. The whole matter was fully sifted, and a letter from the director of the prison was shown to the hon. Member for Leicester, who expressed himself fully satisfied with the explanation given. The truth was, that the writer was suffering under mental delusion, and that this was the origin of the charge. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had brought forward some anonymous charge published in a newspaper in the North which he (Mr. Cross) was unable to answer. It contained a long description of what was supposed to have occurred in the prison, and the hon. Member had founded arguments upon it.

I should not have mentioned this matter but that, I believe, the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was directed to it.

said, that was so; but he thought it unfortunate that a description in an anonymous letter of what was supposed to have taken place in a prison should be read to the House before the matter was sifted. He had not been able to ascertain the name of the writer, but he hoped that information on the subject would be forwarded to him. At present he knew nothing of the matter, and therefore could not argue upon it, but he had no doubt an explanation would be forthcoming. With regard to inspection, there was already, under ordinary circumstances, an inspection of county prisons, and there could be no reason why there should not be an inspection of convict prisons. They were going to establish prison boards for borough and county prisons, which would work with the visiting justices, and rules would be drawn up for their guidance. It would then be seen how they worked together, and he should have no fear for the result; nor should he have any objection at the proper time to the appointment of persons who should have the power to visit convict prisons. His opinion was that nothing was gained by the concealment of anything done under authority. If there was anything wrong, by all means let it be put right. He would not, however, accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Meath. He was willing at the same time to say that this question should be carefully considered in the course of the Recess. He could not throw this duty upon the visiting justices. They had already a good deal to do in the inspection of county prisons, and he could not ask the visiting justices of a particular county to undertake this task in addition to their present duties. He trusted, however, that some machinery might be found under which persons might visit the convict prisons with something like the authority of the visiting justices of county prisons. He hoped that with that assurance the hon. Member for Meath would leave the matter in his hands, at all events, until the next Session of Parliament. He could not entertain the second part of the Motion, because it amounted to a direct censure upon Colonel Du Cane, the Director of Convict Prisons, in whom both himself and his Predecessors felt the greatest confidence. He stated in the debate on the Prisons Bill that it would be the duty of the Home Office to institute an examination into the treatment of all the prisoners in county and borough gaols. That inquiry, which must be instituted by a Commission, must extend to the convict prisons as well. When the information obtained by that Commission was before the House, there would be ample opportunity of judging whether any and what alterations should be made in prison treatment and discipline. There was, therefore, no reason why an independent Commission should be appointed, to inquire into the same thing. When the House met next Session he hoped to convince hon. Members that they had ample information before them to enable them to come to an accurate judgment. With regard to the complaint of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), he must remind him that it would be extremely invidious for the Secretary of State to say that one prisoner should be treated differently from another on account of his social station. All prisoners, whether rich or poor, must be treated alike. He could assure the House that it was not likely he would forget the prisoner at Dartmoor, because he was so often reminded of him. He had made special inquiries as to his health and the way in which it was affected by his treatment, and he had received assurances from those in whom he felt the fullest confidence that there was nothing in his treatment to justify the slightest complaint. In consequence of the debates on the Prisons Bill, he thought it wise to visit many of these prisons, and he had been in four or five of them. He had made it a practice to see the prisoners alone in their cells, and in one prison he saw all the prisoners. He did all he could to get complaints out of the prisoners, in regard either to their food or treatment, and the answers he got were entirely satisfactory. The only complaints in one gaol were two in number. A prisoner complained that, although his food was good, he could not get enough of it; and the second complaint was that a prisoner said he had a book on geography, and they would not allow him to have the maps. These were the only complaints he could screw out of the prisoners. [Mr. PARNELL: Were these convict prisons?] They were. One was Millbank and the other Pentonville. He also visited some of the Public Works prisons. The result of his inquiries was that the general management of convict prisons was satisfactory, and this would be the opinion of the House if they had examined the subject in detail.

who had been 18 years on the Surrey bench, said, the visiting magistrates of that county made it a rule to see each prisoner alone, and to ask whether he had any complaint to make.

suggested, for the consideration of the Government, that greater uniformity of management might be secured if convict, as well as borough and county prisons, were placed under the control of one Board of Commissioners.

said, the subject had been repeatedly discussed in the debates on the Prisons Bill, and that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had expressed it to be his opinion that it would be better to try the new system, before any steps were taken to proceed with such a consolidation as that proposed on the lines of the old.

said, he was glad that the Home Secretary had made a concession; but he pointed out that the inspection by these Commissioners, as suggested, would not be an independent inspection, and these Commissioners would be looked upon with more or less suspicion, as prisoners would think they might play into the hands of other officers. The present system had a tendency to encourage the bribing of turnkeys.

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman had consented to the principle of an independent inspection of convict prisons, and had expressed his intention of extending an inquiry to convict prisons, he would withdraw his Motion; at the same time he hoped that the Board of Inquiry would be composed of men independent of Government.

said, he did not see how they could be perfectly independent, as their appointment must be from the Crown; and he wished to explain that what he had said was, that he did not see why, if there was to be an inspection of borough and county prisons when they became Government prisons, there should not also be the same for convict prisons. It was, however, difficult to manage, and he must have time to consider. There must be a Commission, and, indeed, the names of the Commissioners had been submitted for approval to consider the whole discipline of borough and county prisons; and this inquiry would extend to convict prisons.

severely criticized the constitution and duties of the Board, commenting upon such works as the drainage of the Shannon and the Ulster Canal. The former had been in contemplation, but had made no progress, for the last 43 years. The salaries of the officials were extravagant, and the work of the Board was most inefficiently carried out. He would move to reduce the amount of the Vote by £9,000.

repeated the offer he had made on a former occasion to bring any reasonable proposals respecting the Ulster Canal under the notice of the Treasury. It was a mistake to suppose that the management of the Irish Board of Works was inefficient or the salaries extravagant. As to the drainage of the Shannon, the subject had been repeatedly discussed in that House, and the Government had done their best to promote the work by passing an Act under the operation of which the Treasury had power to contribute half the cost, or a sum of £150,000 for the purpose. It was owing, he might add, to the action of the proprietors, who refused to contribute their share, that the Act had become inoperative.

without referring to special works, such as the Shannon drainage, the Ulster or Ballinamore Canal, could vouch for the general dissatisfaction existing as to the state of the Board of Works. Within the last few days, before the Committee upon the subject, there had been evidence showing the extraordinary way in which business was carried on by this so-called Board.

said, it was not in Order to refer to proceedings before Committees still sitting.

But the Committee had reported, and, therefore, he was justified in his reference. Before the Committee was evidence showing that there was no such thing as a Board of Works in Dublin. It was admitted that they never met except to receive deputations. There were no Minutes kept, and things were carried on in a most hap-hazard way. The real Board consisted of the Secretary, and even the Commissioners did not know how the business was conducted. Another thing in connection with this Board was the amount of charge made whenever they were applied to to inspect any proposal for carrying out public works in any part of the country. An engineer sent down to any place was the occasion of three guineas a-day for his services, and, in addition, the public paid for his salary and superannuation. It would be most advantageous if the Chief Secretary would look into the constitution of the Board, and see how it could be improved.

thought the answer of the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary was rather unfortunate. He understood the right hon. Baronet to say that he was perfectly satisfied with the constitution of the Board. [Sir Michael HICKS-BEACH: No!] He was glad to hear that admission, because, in his opinion, no one could justify its constitution. The Act of Parliament required that there should be three Commissioners of Works; but, at the present time, to carry out the Act, it was necessary to have some aid in consequence of the age of one of the Commissioners. This gentleman was nearly 90 years old, and he lived in England. The Government, nevertheless, retained him upon the Board, and assistance was provided in the shape of an Assistant Commissioner, who ought in reality to be one of the three Commissioners, the aged Commissioner drawing no salary on account of the Board of Works, but instead thereof he received £1,500 as Commissioner of Valuation. The Assistant Commissioner only received—until the present year, when it was raised to £1,000—a miserable salary of £800 a-year, and he was one of the most distinguished drainage engineers in Ireland. But instead of being put to his proper work he was placed at the head of the Architectural Department, and occupied in designs for schools, barracks, and teachers' residences. The whole constitution of the Board was unjustifiable, and the Commissioner should not be retained merely to gratify his personal feelings. True, it might be said he drew no salary, but a Commissioner should be appointed who could do his work, and was worthy of his salary.

remarked that hon. Members who represented Ireland were not very often eager to reduce the amount of money to be spent in that country, and he hoped that in this in- stance the Government would take them at their word, when they proposed what appeared to him to be so reasonable an economy.

said, that if Irish Members desired economy, it was because the money which it was often proposed to spend did more harm than good. There was no objection to expenditure sensibly directed; but the expenditure by the Board of Works was extravagant and useless. But if the Government were anxious to spend the £9,000, they might very well lay it out in improving the drainage of the Shannon Valley, where much money had been wasted, and many engineering mistakes made. He would call attention to the failure of the Shannon Improvement Act which the Government passed three Sessions since, contemptuously rejecting sensible practical Amendments proposed by local Irish Members fully competent to form an opinion as to the best course that ought to be pursued in carrying out such works, and would suggest the question should be left to an Irish Committee selected from Members who would represent the interests of those who required the river kept up for navigation, as well as those who required the water of the country carried off.

said, he was not at all clear that Irish Members would come to any unanimous opinion respecting the Shannon Valley, though, no doubt, they would all agree in thinking that money might be spent there very usefully. He would call the attention of the Committee to the enormous amount charged by the Office of Works for travelling expenses. There were £2,200 charged this year, and last year it was £2,000. That matter required the serious attention of the Government.

as the Representative of the Treasury, could say that the Government would gladly accept any Motion for the reduction of expenses, if only they thought it practicable and conducive to efficiency; but that was not the case with the Motion before the Committee. Some few of the remarks directed against the Office of Works were, perhaps, a little unfair, as the charges complained of with regard to drainage were determined by Act of Parliament, so that objection should be taken to the Act rather than to the authorities. He might mention that the Commis- sioner referred to by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) received no salary, though he was entitled to a full retiring pension. He would admit there was something calling for inquiry, and having conferred with his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he was prepared to undertake that an inquiry should be made into the constitution of the Office. He must observe, however, that the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway went in the direction, not of a reduction, but of an increase of the cost. With reference to the item of travelling expenses, it should be remembered that the Office of Works had to examine, maintain, and keep in repair all the public buildings in Ireland, 1,237 in number, to receive all applications for arterial drainage, to maintain harbours, to look to the construction of fishery piers, and do a variety of other business. Through it large amounts of public money were advanced, requiring beforehand the most careful inquiry. Though he could not himself account for every farthing of this expenditure, he was prepared to say that it had been most carefully audited. But that was one of the points which would be inquired into by the Committee appointed to examine the constitution of the Board. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) had revived the old story of the drainage of the Shannon. He (Mr. Smith) must observe that the Bill on the subject had been pressed on the House by local opinion, and no sooner was it passed than a number of proprietors not only refused to contribute, but advanced claims for compensation if the floods were stopped. Again, some persons maintained that the navigation of the river should be carefully preserved; while others contended that the navigation was of no consequence whatever, and that it was the drainage which ought to be attended to. The hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had complained that the Board did not meet. There were very few Boards in the Public Service that did meet, and amongst them was the Board of Admiralty. In other Boards, under the direction of the Chairman, the business was most carefully assigned, and the several Commissioners consulted together, but formal and regular meet- ings of Boards so called were not held. Indeed, the expression "meeting of the Board" was not a good one. In the case under discussion the Chairman was, he believed, a most efficient public servant, and the duties were performed in a way conducive to the public interest. But that also would be a fit subject of inquiry by the Committee.

could not support the Motion for the reduction of the Vote, and he hoped his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain O'Beirne) would withdraw it. The Committee had a distinct promise from the Government that the constitution of the Board of Works would be inquired into, and he knew whatever his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury undertook, he would diligently perform.

also asked his hon. and gallant Friend not to press the reduction of the Vote.

said, that as the Government had given a full and frank promise of inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Works in Ireland he should withdraw his Amendment.

suggested that the Committee of Inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Works should inquire into the efficiency and necessity for maintaining the various other public Departments in Ireland, so that the House might obtain trustworthy information on the subject. He also wished to suggest that the Committee should not be composed exclusively of Irish Members, so that the inquiry might be impartial. He believed, if a thorough inquiry were made, it would do away with constant complaints as to the way in which the affairs of Ireland were conducted.

said, one of their grievances was that there was not sufficient Irishmen on these Commissions. He therefore hoped they would be adequately represented on the Commission or Committee which the Government would appoint.

said, the greatest obstructives in Ireland were the officials of the Board of Works. They always endeavoured to see how not to do it. If any inquiry were to be instituted, he trusted the Commission would not include either Mr. Lingen, or "that nuisance in Ireland," Mr. Herbert Murray.

expressed a hope that the inquiry would not be limited to the Board of Works, but that it would be applied to the Local Government Board, and similar offices as well. A few months ago he saw a body of Scotch soldiers in the Four Courts, and next day a corps of Welsh soldiers, headed not by a non-commissioned officer, but by Mr. Herbert Murray; and on making inquiries he learnt that these soldiers had been told off to examine some coal that was supposed not to have been supplied according to contract. The Scotch soldiers declared that the bad coals were not Scotch coal, and the Welsh soldiers gave their opinion that they were not Welsh coal, which they ought to have been. The coal was left there, as that point could not be determined, and that was the way in which Mr. Herbert Murray managed his Department.

said, the Board of Works never had any Minutes of their proceedings, and he thought that the system should be revised. Several of the officials had sinecures, and it was well that they should be abolished. Then the Board of Public Works was thoroughly inefficient, and they certainly made a mess of their business altogether. All the expense of draining the Shannon had resulted in nothing, simply owing to the inefficiency of these officials, and then again the Ballinamore Canal was another monument to their inefficiency.

said, the head and front of Mr. Herbert Murray's offence was that he was a very zealous official of the Treasury. He was, therefore, perhaps one of the most unpopular men in Ireland. Mr. Murray came over from the Treasury to investigate the position of the Government officials in Dublin with a view to a reduction, and he had reported to the Government in that direction. In fact Mr. Murray was carrying out what the Irish Members were advocating in that House. Mr. Murray held a very invidious position, and he had done his work well, and certainly did not deserve any obloquy for the way in which he had done his duty. With regard to the Board of Public Works, he repeated that they had a sham Board, for it was absolutely impossible to fix responsibility on any one. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary had told them that he answered according to the best of his information; and, in fact, the way the business was managed it was impossible for the right hon. Ba- ronet to answer otherwise than to give a general assurance that everything was being done for the best. He trusted, if they were to have an investigation, that it would be of such a character as to command the confidence of the public.

said, he could give the assurance of the Chief Secretary and his own that the Commission would be so constituted as to thoroughly secure the confidence of the people of Ireland.

asked, whether the Commission would consist of Gentleman in the permanent pay of the Government?

replied that it was impossible to say, within half-an-hour of giving the undertaking for the Commission, as to how it should be constituted.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider whether it may not be extended to other Departments.

asked, if the Board would carry on the valuation of Ireland, and if it would adopt the scale of prices scheduled in the Bill?

replied that the question of the new valuation had better be discussed when the Valuation Bill was taken. If the Valuation Bill became law, the new valuation would be based on a scale framed from the market price in various parts of Ireland.

Will this Department carry on the valuation, and will there be an extra Vote not included in this Vote?

Yes.

inquired why the costs in Divorce Court cases were not paid by the losing parties? The number of cases in which the Queen's Proctor intervened appeared to be increasing, and he wished to know why his costs were paid by the Treasury?

in reply, said, that until very recently the Queen's Proctor was an independent officer, but the duties were now discharged by the Solicitor of the Treasury, who was paid by salary. It was perfectly true that the costs ought to fall on the unsuccessful party, but that was not always the case. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had exercised the greatest discretion in authorizing the intervention of the Queen's Proctor. In this case there was no creation of a new office, but simply a transfer of duties from the office of Queen's Proctor to that of the Solicitor of the Treasury.

observed that when the Divorce Court was established, Sir Cresswell Cresswell desired the assistance of an officer to inquire into cases to see whether there had been any collusion between the parties. Accordingly the Queen's Proctor had been appointed to discharge the requisite duties. When collusion was established he was entitled to his costs from the parties, but he frequently intervened where collusion could not be proved, but where material facts had been kept from the knowledge of the Court. When under the Act he was not entitled to his costs from the parties, they were paid by the Treasury.

hoped the Government would give Mr. Justice Fry the usual Staff. The expense would be but light, and much inconvenience was suffered by the public from the present arrangement.

said, he was aware of the existence of a ge- neral feeling that Mr. Justice Fry ought to have the ordinary Staff of a Vice Chancellor, but he did not know whether it was justified. It had not been thought necessary when he was appointed that he should have a Staff, and he (the Attorney General) had not convinced himself that it was necessary. The Staff attached to the different Judges was already exceedingly numerous, amounting to more than 100 persons. The evil was that under the present system the Staff of one Vice Chancellor could not assist the Staff of another. There were some of these gentlemen who had a great deal of work to do, and others who had little to do. Now there might be an alteration, and if the clerks who were not overwhelmed with work might be called upon to assist the clerks who had a great deal to do, the difficulty would be got over. At all events, the present arrangement might be allowed to work a little longer.

wished to say a few words upon the Official Referees— not as to their personal qualifications, which were discussed last year, but as to the work they had to perform and the public money squandered upom them. It was an appointment of judicial officers in a direction in which they were not of the slightest use. There had been a twelve month's trial of the Official Referees. He found that one of them had had 12 causes before him, and sat 80 hours last year, which, allowing six hours for a working day, gave him 13 days and a fraction out of the 365 days of the year. Another had nine causes, and had sat 339 hours during the 365 days. One Referee had had 12 causes before him, another 18, another 9, and another also 9. One Referee had sat 273hours, another 339, the third 247, and the fourth, as he had stated, 80 hours. For these services the country was paying £6,000—namely, £1,500 a-year to each of these gentlemen, and £200 to their clerks. All this time suitors were complaining that they could not get their causes heard, and the Government were refusing to increase the judicial strength of the Courts because of the expense, while this sum of £6,000, which would pay the salary of another Judge, was being spent with utter inutility to the public. He hoped that some means would be devised of affording these gentlemen more work, and that no more Official Referees would be appointed.

said, he must admit that these gentlemen had not had very much work to perform. When the Judicature Bill of 1873 was introduced by the late Government, it made a sweeping alteration in the Courts of Justice, and it was thought necessary to have official persons to decide a variety of cases that could not be decided by the High Court itself. He believed that this view was entertained, among others, by his hon. and learned Friend, and it was thought that barristers should be appointed who, without the assent of the parties, should be required to adjudicate in cases requiring a prolonged examination of documents or accounts which could not be sent before a jury. The consequence was the introduction of of a clause authorizing the appointment of Referees, and empowering the Court to send before them questions for their decision, with the consent of the parties, and also, as he had intimated, cases requiring prolonged examinations. The clause also authorized the Court to send matters before the Official Referees, or before special Referees agreed upon by the parties. The result was that, generally speaking, the parties to a suit desired that matters which could not be decided by the Court should be sent before Referees of their own choosing, rather than before the Official Referees —a wish on the part of the litigants to which the Judges were not unreasonably disposed to yield. If, therefore, the Official Referees had not much business to get through, it was owing to no fault of theirs, for it could not fairly be alleged that they had in any way whatever neglected their duties, and he must in justice say they had shown their willingness to perform any work that might be required of them. No complaint had been made of the way in which those duties were performed; they did their work so far as they had it to do satisfactorily; and if the Judges would not so frequently yield, as they not unnaturally did, to the wish of the litigants, the amount of that work would be considerably increased. But, be that as it might, the institution of Official Referees had so far, he must admit, been a failure; and if in a short time the Judges did not adopt the course which he suggested, instead of sending cases before Referees appointed by the parties, or special Referees, as they were termed, different arrangements must be made and the services of the Official Referees must be utilized in some other way. He should deem it to be his duty, after a little further experience, to communicate with the Lord Chancellor with that object.

said, he was glad to hear that the hon. and learned Attorney General intended to put himself into communication with the Lord Chancellor on the subject, and suggested the desirability of considering whether the number of Referees should not be reduced. He was of opinion that if barristers of long standing and experience in their Profession had been appointed to the position of special Referees, they would have given great satisfaction to the country, and their services would have been put quite as much in requisition as those of the Railway Commissioners.

quite believed that the Referees were desirous of performing their duties; but the system was not a satisfactory or popular one, and the question was whether these gentlemen could not be put on a different footing. For his own part, he should like to see the system assimilated to that of the chief clerks of the Judges in Chancery —a system which he believed would operate satisfactorily and effect a considerable saving to the country.

said, there was a feeling abroad — whether rightly or wrongly he could not say—against the Judges sending cases down for trial to the Referees. He was rather surprised at hearing the hon. and learned Attorney General say that he had done all in his power, without success, to induce the Judges to refer cases for arbitrament to the Referees.

earnestly hoped that the hon. and learned Attorney General would not longer try to induce the Judges to send cases to the Referees. He did not think that a suitor should be compelled to go before a Referee whom he disliked. He ought at least to have a voice in the choice of his own Referee.

was opposed to any extension of the system of Judges' clerks, which litigants regarded as a very great nuisance. It did not in its operation give satisfaction to the suitors.

considered there were defects in the new Judicature system which ought to be remedied. He thought the popularity of the Referees would not be increased if suitors were obliged to take their cases before them in the way proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

said, his remarks appeared to have been somewhat misunderstood. He did not desire that the Courts should compel parties to go to a reference. That was a great evil, and he thought that when persons came before a Court of Justice their causes ought, as a rule, to be tried by the Judges themselves. Sometimes, however, causes could not be so tried, because they involved long investigations, or for other reasons; and if such causes were referred, the suitors themselves, or their solicitors, were to blame. By a section of the Act of 1873, the Court was empowered in certain cases to send causes to be tried by another tribunal. This, however, could only be done in specified cases; and what he said was, that when a Judge had determined to refer a cause, it would be better for him to send it to the Referees appointed by the Act of Parliament. At the time the Act was passed it was intended that the Referees should be the persons who were to decide these matters.

said, there was one grievance which had not yet been alluded to, and which operated most unfairly on litigants. At the end of an Assize, on Circuit, it constantly happened that Judges and counsel were anxious to get away, and solicitors and clients were so pressed by a combination of the Judge and leading counsel that it was impossible to avoid referring a cause. And this also occurred sometimes during Term, when there was a press of business. If the power of reference to the Official Referees were extended, the evil, which was already great, would be thereby increased.

said, that many cases went into Court which were certain to be referred to the Official Referees, and it would be much more satisfactory, indeed it was preferred, to send them to arbitrators. The Referees had given satisfaction neither to the Profession nor the public, and there was a very general feeling that they had not been a success. He trusted that unless these Referees were found during the Recess to be fully employed the hon. and learned Attorney General would see his way next year to reducing the Vote in respect of their salaries, otherwise he (Mr. Dodds) would in that respect move the reduction of the Vote by £6,000.

believed that there were only two ways, by either both, or one of which the inconvenience at present inflicted upon suitors could be removed. In the case of causes involving accounts, the Judge was often right to refer them. As regarded the business at the large Circuit towns in the North, it would be necessary either to increase the number of the Judges, or to extend the powers of the County Courts. All the evils existed still which had existed before the appointments of the Official Referees, and nothing could be worse than the way in which both the London and the country Law Courts were blocked up with cases to be tried. Both Judges and counsel naturally wished to get their work done, but want of time stood in their way, and the present arrangements were insufficient. He could perceive no remedy for this very inconvenient state of things unless at least one of the two courses were taken that he had indicated.

said, that the Referees had made themselves unpopular by their habit of consulting with counsel, and by the length of time that usually elapsed between the various appointments. Perhaps there might be a month or six weeks between one appointment and another, and when Referees and counsel met again all they had known before about the case was forgotten. The consequence was that people would rather have anything than a reference, as in many instances the costs incurred far exceeded the value of the amount at stake. What he would like to see was one good tribunal like the Railway Commissioners, which would meet and settle the matter at once. When the Referee commenced a case, he should go on with it until it was finished, whether counsel could remain or not. Let them go to—wherever they liked. That view might be very unpopular in an Assembly which contained so many lawyers, but it was one which he thought was well founded.

called attention to the salaries and expenses of the district registrars of the High Court.

also called attention to the evils arising from allowing registrars to have private practice. In some instances a registrar might have his own partner coming before him in cases in which he was concerned. He hoped the Government would take the matter in hand, and that they would propose a Vote which would give registrars adequate salaries and enable them to give up private practice.

said, that where it could be done it was very desirable that the registrar should not have private practice; but in very small places, the fees which registrars received for the business they did would be utterly inadequate. The suggestion made had been and would be adopted, wherever the fees would allow of it. The registrars of Liverpool and Manchester had both been so appointed.

said, the evil arising from the registrars of County Courts being themselves in private practice was very much felt in the North of England, even in places where the salary was amply sufficient, and it would be very satisfactory to have such cases inquired into.

said, that the Chief Registrar received a salary of £1,200 under this Vote, and £400 from other sources. As his work had been done in his absence in Canada by the assistant, he thought his services were not very much needed, and he moved that the Vote be reduced by £1,600.

expressed a hope that the Motion would not be persevered in, as the officer in question had several important duties to perform, and was a most zealous and efficient public servant.

explained that this gentleman's duties were very laborious, and that he was very efficient.

observed that during his absence his duties were performed with difficulty.

said, he had no intention of pressing his Motion after those explanations.

complained that there were great arrears in these Courts, and especially in the registration of wills. Why should there be a charge of £1,300 for "making up arrears?"

said, that a sufficient number of clerks would be appointed to clear up the arrears on the Vote for the Wreck Commissioners' Office.

asked what the duties of the office were?

said, that the duties were to hold inquiries into wrecks under the Merchant Shipping Act.

asked how the item of £6,000 for nautical assessors was applied?

asked what was the explanation of the charges for justices and for shorthand writers?

asked what were the duties of the Wreck Commissioner?

said, that the duties of the Wreck Commissioner were enormous. Shorthand writers were employed because it was necessary to publish the proceedings.