said, that if that Vote had come on some weeks ago, the proposal he should have made would have Been more drastic than the one he was then about to propose. He should have moved to reduce the amount by that of the salaries of the Prison Commissioners; but, on the present occasion, he should not do so. The Committee should bear in mind that, under the present system, there were intimate relations between the Visiting Committees and the Commissioners; while, under the old system, the prisons in counties were administered by Justices of the counties under the rules and regulations of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. An hon. Member opposite, who was not then in the House, had referred to that supervision of Justices as being desultory. He must say it appeared to him (Mr. Magniac) that that was not quite the term to use. He felt sure that no duties were performed in a more conscientious and effective manner than those of the Visiting Justices of prisons; a constant supervision was kept up in every prison and every gaol; and he knew perfectly well, in every case of oppression, the prisoner could always resort to those Visiting Justices with a certainty of having, if not redress, at any rate, the matter carefully looked into. Under the new system, which was brought in on the ground of uniformity and economy, the great objection was that that uniformity and economy was being carried out to the bitter end. If the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had done what he proposed to do—namely, to carry out, as he said, the management of prisons, in conjunction with the Visiting Justices, that would have obviated the objection that had arisen to that hard-and-fast red-tape rule, by which prisoners were deprived of that ready means of redress to which, in his (Mr. Magniac's) opinion, they were necessarily and legally entitled. The Commissioners were appointed by the late Government, on the ground that the Government, having taken over the prisons, were entitled to control the expenditure. He ventured to submit that the control of expenditure and the management of the prisons would have been done equally well if carried out by the Government by making use of the existing Committees. Those Committees were perfectly well acquainted with the duties, and in rural districts, especially, were able to bring an immense amount of local knowledge to bear upon the administration of the prisons which it was impossible that the Commissioners could possess. But that fact was not allowed to weigh with the Government. The Commissioners were appointed and had almost autocratic power under the Secretary of State, and the Visiting Justices were relegated to duties which, in many cases, were almost nominal. In making that change, he thought it had not sufficiently been borne in mind that the object of a prison was not only the keeping of unfortunate wretches so many months or years immured within four walls, but also the prevention of crime and the proper regulation of such establishments. He would venture to say that the application of a uniform rule, had, moreover, a deleterious effect, inasmuch as what might apply to prisons in towns was often not applicable to those of rural districts; so that, in fact, very great discrimination ought to be shown in dealing with the two classes of prisons. One of the greatest advantages in the duties of Justices of these prisons was that the Justices who formed the Committees, being those administering the law in counties, had an opportunity of seeing the effect of punishments upon prisoners, and of observing, from time to time and year to year, the general results of the punishments as administered in those districts, and the decrease or increase in crime which was due to the different modes of punishment resorted to. The duty of seeing the effect of punishments, was in fact, one of the most praiseworthy a Justice had to perform. He was sure that no one would pretend to say that if, under the old system of 50 years ago, where boys and girls were brought up for capital punishment on a Monday morning, the Justices could have seen the effect of their sentences, that barbarism would have lasted as long as it did, especially, also, if the Judges had reported that such modes of repressing crime were useless. He (Mr. Magniac) believed that a better education and culture of the masses of the people had gone a long way to render the effect of the punishments now-a-days as important as was that of capital punishment 50 years ago. When a man was immured within four walls, who could tell the amount of suffering which he undoubtedly underwent? He believed that suffering was much more in such a case as that, than in that of a hardened ruffian who went out of the world without knowing nor caring where he was going. He thought that immuring people, as under the existing regulation, was a matter of the utmost care and solicitude. Whenever a scandal did occur, as little as possible was said about it; but they ought to be careful that, in suppressing the matter, they were not laying themselves open to, perhaps, a greater scandal some day, by which the whole system would be overturned. A statement was made, a few nights since, by an hon. Member, no doubt, in perfect good faith; and the way in which he made it showed that he believed it. He (Mr. Magniac) thought, at the time, that probably the hon. Member had been misinformed of the facts; but the circumstances which he mentioned showed that a strict and constant supervision over our criminal classes in prisons was abundantly and urgently required. It was by a strict supervision alone that cruelty and unnecessary punishments would be avoided, and such strict supervision could only be carried out by such men as those to whom he had already alluded. Each year, since the passing of the Bill of 1877, the Visiting Justices had held a Conference in London, and the whole question of prisons was, so far as time permitted, carefully and conscientiously considered. They had laid their heads together, and endeavoured to secure justice for the unfortunate people in prisons, and that punishment should be meted out with the two-fold object only of the prevention of crime, and the reformation of the prisoner. The first point which was invariably brought forward at those Conferences had been the imperfect powers of Justices. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the late Government, who was not then present, when he brought in his Bill, on more than one occasion told them, with very open mouth, that the Justices had very important duties to perform; and he (Mr. Magniac) was rather amused at the right hon. and learned Gentleman below him, the present Secretary of State for the Home Department, a few nights since, seeming to have caught the infection, for he also gave them the usual Home Office formula—namely, that the Justices had very important duties. He (Mr. Magniac) could only say, that Justices of the Peace had, no doubt, important duties to perform; but the Justices of a Visiting Committee, as members of that Visiting Committee, had by no means such important duties, and rather less powers, than an outside Justice. For instance, a member of a Visiting Committee could only in that capacity, under certain circumstances, inflict a punishment of 14 days; whereas an ordinary Justice could give a month. The only advantage, in fact, that the Visiting Committee had over ordinary Justices was the right to visit the prisons, and unfortunate people condemned to death. The latter, in fact, was the only extraordinary power they possessed. When, therefore, it was said that the members of Visiting Committees had most important duties, he was inclined to doubt whether the Government that brought in the Bill had given sufficient attention to the subject of the duties intended to be allowed to devolve on those Justices. He felt certain that from the way in which the Bill had been drafted, and the subsequent rules, that proper attention had not been given to that subject. The consequence was that the Justices had themselves been obliged to consider the matter, and had come to the conclusion that their powers ought to be increased. He had with him a copy of the proceedings at the last Conference, at which a resolution was passed, that he thought would be admitted to be a most temperate and moderate one. It was—

"That in order to secure for persons confined the personal rights to which everyone is entitled under the law, and to promote the hotter administration of the prisons, it is desirable that the powers and authority of the Visiting Justices should be increased."

That was a desire, he considered, expressed in the most moderate language; and it was made in no spirit of assumption. The resolution went on to say—

"Whereas the Visiting Justices do not desire to assume duties to be performed by anyone else, their opinion is that those duties which may properly be confined to the Visiting Justices should not be performed by anyone but themselves."

The fact was, that they had local knowledge and authority, and the duties could not be so well carried out by other people. There were many other subjects brought forward at the Conference to which he had referred. One was the question of the education of prisoners. When a man was shut up for four or five years, or one year, as the case might be, it was not to be supposed that his mind was to be left an utter blank, and nothing be done towards improving his mind and making him a better member of society. That subject had been carefully considered by the Visiting Justices, and they had, under their old system, been in the constant habit of attending the classes of the prisoners, in order to see whether the instruction was suitable to the understanding of the prisoners and properly conducted. Under the present system of cellular instruction, each member of the prison was to have education imparted to him in his cell. By a simple arithmetical calculation one arrived at the fact, that if there were five hours a-day for instruction and 150 prisoners in the gaol, there were two minutes for each, not allowing for the time occupied by the schoolmaster in running from one cell to another. Such an arrangement was a farce. He was aware that the same reason had been given for that cellular instruction—namely, that it was more economical than the system of classes. That might be true, that it cost less money; but he denied that it could be of advantage at all. He would say that it was an absurd waste of money to pretend to give instruction in any such way as that. The minds of prisoners at the best of times were not well cultivated, and they gave two minutes to each of them each day. As to the books used in prisons, it might be supposed that the Visiting Justices would probably be the best persons in the world to consult upon that subject, and yet that was a matter which devolved upon the Commissioners. Without impugning the capacity of their knowledge as to the requisite books, he ventured to say that the Commissioners were not in a position to judge of what books were required. There was one thing in regard to that which was a shocking one—namely, that for the first month the only book of instruction and amusement was the Bible. He should like to know whether it was probable that that was the best way in which a prisoner could improve his mind in the slightest degree? The effect of it must be to cause him to entertain a disgust for the Book which might be a comfort and a blessing to him during his confinement. There were many other points with which he would not trouble the Committee. In regard to the punishments by Governors, he must say that, in some respects, they appeared to be uncontrollable, except by law. They had proposed to control them, so that the Visiting Justices, who were constantly in the habit of inquiring into mal-practices, might be able to restrain them in some way. There was also the question of those imprisoned for debt, and the question of warders. With regard to the latter, it might appear to be a simple one to those unacquainted with prisons; but it was not so. Some warders were kind and considerate to prisoners, and yet carried out their duties with firmness and without oppression; but the Visiting Justices had but little to do with the engagement of those men. It was a local matter, and certainly ought to be within their province. With reference to the removal of prisoners, he would say that that also was, in his opinion, within the province of the Visiting Justices. Very often, prisoners were taken out of their own county and sent into another, where they had no friends and no means, perhaps, of communicating with them. The Commissioners of Prisons knew nothing whatever of the harshness there was in removing prisoners from their own locality to another. As to the question of prison labour, it was far too large for him to go into on that occasion. With regard to it, he would merely say that if there was a matter in which local knowledge was required it was that. There might be industries struggling, as it were, between life and death, which it would be unwise to deal with. The hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had shown, some short time since, how the greatest injustice prevailed in respect to mat-making, and other industries, in gaols. That, he (Mr. Magniac) asserted, was a question which was most especially one which the Visiting Justices were competent to deal with, and one which the Commissioners, from their ignorance of the state of particular districts, could not handle. All those points had had the greatest consideration at the Conference of Justices. They were matters with regard to which very much depended upon the way in which they were carried out, and were intimately connected with the administration of justice and the management of prisoners and prisons. He was quite aware that people outside, when they heard of the Visiting Justices of prisons, attributed much greater power to them than they possessed; and, consequently, a false impression was created. He thought it was unfair to those Committees to ask them to undertake duties which they had no means of efficiently carrying out. Frequent representations had been made to Home Secretaries, as to the necessity of giving increased powers to the Visiting Justices, and the answer given had invariably been that the subject was being considered. He supposed that it was being considered then, for he was not aware that as yet any decision had been come to. Someone had said that if the responsibility was taken away, there could be no interest. That was exactly what they felt. The responsibility had been taken away, and their interest must inevitably die out; it could not be otherwise. He believed that the feeling of the Committee was strongly in favour of independent inspection of convict establishments. A Royal Commission which sat to inquire into the matter had reported most strongly in favour of the appointment of independent Inspectors, whose duty it should be to stand, between the prisoner and the gaoler. Up to the year 1877, that machinery existed, as he believed, in a most efficient form. They had gentlemen who were willing to undertake those duties; but the Act of 1877, he (Mr. Magniac) did not hesitate to say, so impaired their powers that it was a matter of great discouragement to many of the Visiting Justices. He felt sure that if the system which existed at the present time was allowed to continue, some great scandal would certainly happen. The late Secretary of State for the Home Department differed from him on that point, and it was quite natural that he should do so. He had brought in the Bill, in order to take over the prisons; but he seemed to have neglected the fact that a severe strain was put upon the system. At present, the Visiting Justices were gentlemen trained under the old system, who were thoroughly acquainted with the business of prisons, and had had the management of them for years. They could not last for ever; and when they disappeared, they must necessarily have recourse to younger Justices, who had no opportunity of learning the duties, or of acquiring the knowledge that was necessary. He believed it would be a great discouragement if the position of those Justices was not improved. He felt sure that the appeal he had to make on behalf of the Justices to the Secretary of State for the Home Department would not be in vain. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had shown great courtesy on a former occasion, when he had received a deputation on the subject, and had displayed an intimate knowledge of it. He was sure that the Justices who had held the Conference to which he had alluded, whose only object in making the request was that they might have better opportunities of performing the duties connected with those prison establishments conscientiously, would be very gratified to know that that subject was to receive the consideration of the Government. He thanked the Committee for having listened to his remarks; but they referred to a subject which deserved consideration. They were on behalf of a class of the community who were not able to take care of themselves, a class against whom every hand was raised. It was stated by one of the Governors of prisons that he never thought of believing the statement of a prisoner; and that if a complaint were made, it was just as well that it never had been made. They had that in evidence. He knew they were not all like that; the Governor of their own gaol, for instance, was a man who would not entertain such feelings, but rather was ready to show pity towards outcasts from society, for whom nobody would say a good word and everybody a bad one. They were entitled to justice and might have it. He firmly believed that the sole means of having a real inspection of prisons was by the duty being allowed to devolve upon an independent body of gentlemen, who were able and willing to undertake it. He trusted that the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be able to give them some assurance on the subject.

said, that he should not detain the Committee; but he wished to say that he was very much indebted to his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) for the clear way in which he had stated what he believed ought to be done in the case of the Visiting Justices. As he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) understood it, his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department was anxious that the Visiting Justices should have greater powers, for he believed that he had stated as much to the deputation which had been already referred to. He was exceedingly sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department was not there; for it was rather unfair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who was at present filling the Office, and who had, as it were, just taken over that large concern, to attack him in any way, if Questions were asked and were not as satisfactorily answered as if his Predecessor had been present. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) quite agreed with the hon. Member for Bedford, that the power of Visiting Magistrates required consideration. Great discrimination was required in order that the duties of those Justices should not clash with those of the Commissioners. The Justices had nothing to do with the expenditure and the general manage- ment of prisons; but they ought to be able to see that the Governors did their duty. He thought, at any rate, that the latter was a subject with regard to which they ought certainly, in certain ways, to be allowed to interfere. A case occurred the other day in his own personal experience. He looked over the Governor's book, and saw that he had omitted to enter any particulars for a certain number of days. He questioned him upon it, and the Governor said—"It has been passed by the Commissioners, and the Visiting Justices have nothing to do with it." He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) replied that he would see about that, and an entry was accordingly made in the book, to the effect that the Governor had not entered any particulars in the book for a certain number of days. When he was a Visitor at one of the County prisons, he had always insisted upon an entry being made by the Governor from day to day, so that they might know everything of consequence that occurred, and whether the Governor himself was doing his duty. If there were no entry, they could not be sure that he had been there at all; and he believed that such an omission as that to which he had referred would not have been reported by the Commissioners to the Home Office. He was sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider the subject of those Justices, and he should wait patiently in the expectation that something would be done to improve the position of those who had such serious work to perform. There was another point upon which he wished to touch. He had always been against the transfer of the gaols, and he had both spoken and voted against that transfer. The gaols were now in the hands of the Government, and they had a right to ask whether what was said by the late Secretary of State for the Home Department would be the effect of the transfer—namely, a great reduction of expenditure—had taken place? They wanted to know the expenditure of the gaols in the year 1877, and the two or three years prior to that, and then to have those figures compared with those of succeeding years; so that they might see whether that great saving, which was the only condition upon which that House sanctioned the transfer, had resulted. As regarded prison labour, whether it was a good or bad thing, they ought not to allow it to compete, to any great extent, with other labours outside—for instance, in such industries as mat-making and others which gave employment to the poorer classes. Such labour as was fictitious ought not to appear in the accounts, but only those kinds which actually contributed to the receipts of prisons generally. He submitted those few points to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and hoped he would take them into consideration.

said, that, before he dealt with matters referring to the prisons themselves, he would briefly say, on the subject of the Visiting Justices, that he was quite sure that his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Magniac) must be aware, from the remarks which fell from him when the deputation waited on him, that he put the highest value upon the position and functions of Visiting Justices. He considered them as a necessary intermediary between the centralized executive and the prisoners in the gaol. There was a great danger, not so much of ill-usage as of what was equally bad—a suspicion of ill-usage—unless there was some independent Body, in whom the public could have complete confidence that the prisoners had security and were under their constant supervision. The late Government showed themselves willing to create such an independent Body, instead of appointing Inspectors, so that both convict and ordinary prisons might be under the supervision of such Committees. He would assure the hon. Member that he would do everything in his power to prevent any friction occurring between those Committees and the authorities. The hon. Member had implied that they were tired of making representations to the Home Office. He (Sir William Harcourt) hoped that they would never flag in regard to those representations when anything was going wrong in the prisons. At the same time, he quite agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), that there must be a clear definition of the whole duties of the Visiting Justices and the Commissioners; because, if there were uncertainty on that point, the two authorities would doubtless be brought into disagreeable collision. He was certainly not indisposed to support the authority and extend the scope of the Visiting Justices, and the choice of books was one of the things which the Home Office had determined to put absolutely at the discretion of those Justices. Several other points had been touched upon; but he really thought, so far as he recollected—and his hon. Friend would correct him if he was wrong—that not one single point brought forward by that important deputation of Visiting Justices had not been assented to by him, with one exception, and that was that he was of opinion that all expenses connected with the prison should remain with the Government. With regard to the question of sureties, cases had often come before him where a poor prisoner was unable to get any assistance in that way. He had felt over and over again that it was hard that where evidence had been brought forward to show that the prisoner had not the means, or his friends the pecuniary resources, he should be debarred from the benefits which those in a little better position had the advantage of. He would promise that that matter should be carefully considered. With regard to the removal of prisoners from one gaol to another—that should not be allowed to take place, just as one would remove sacks of grain—the matter deserved much consideration, especially where such removal would be likely to place them under any disability as regarded the preparation of their defence at the trial. His hon. and gallant Friend opposite had referred to the expenses of the two systems. He was probably aware that there was a financial statement which was, to a certain extent, accurate, contained in the last Report—July, 1879—of the Commissioners of Prisons. The real fact was, however—and he had asked the opinion of the Commissioners upon the question—that it was not possible yet to make an independent, complete, and proper Estimate. The changes were too recent at present to render it possible to establish a fair comparison between the state of things before and after the Bill. He would take no responsibility for the statement, as he had had no opportunity of examining the figures; but the Prison Commissioners had expressed a confident opinion that, whatever might be the result in other respects, pecuniarily it would be greatly to the advantage of the public. A reduction of the staff had already taken place to a large extent; and, judging from that, he might say that whatever else might be the effect of the change, it would probably be an economical one. He believed that he had replied to all the points that had been raised, and he would assure the Committee that he would do all in his power to strengthen the hands of the Visiting Justices in the important duties they had to perform. He felt sure that gentlemen would not be willing to undertake those irksome duties unless they felt that they had a real power, and one which was respected both by the Prison Comissioners and the Secretary of State, so that they might be able to recognize the fact that they were engaged in an office really and practically of public utility.

said, he had one or two observations to make to the Committee with regard to the expenses of the new system. When the Prisons Act was passed, it was said that a great saving would be effected. The way to see whether that was so or not, was by watching the Estimates carefully to see whether the Prisons' Vote grew or not. Upon the face of it, it appeared that there was a decrease of a little more than £3,000. He wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether that was not apparent only, and that, in reality, there had been an excess? The Votes which were reduced were those, apparently, capable of being so by the assistance of prison labour; and he should like to know whether he was right in his conjecture, that the Votes, such as victualling and clothing and repairs, shewed a diminution that was due merely to the fact that the labour of the prisoners was employed upon those works? Because, if that were so, the charge this year amounted to £50,000 more than last year. Last year they received £60,000 from the labour of prisoners in the manufacture of articles that were sold; and, instead of that, they then had merely a small diminution in the sub-heads to which he had alluded, together with a small sum under Exchequer Extra Receipts. If, therefore, they put that apparent decrease, and the miscellaneous receipts, together with the actual proceeds of prison labour, it would appear that in the present year the real increase of expenditure was a sum of upwards of £50,000. If that were so, it was exactly in accordance with what he had conjectured when the prisons were transferred. It was a most unsatisfactory result; and, if he were right, he thought it most misleading to show an apparent decrease, when, in reality, there was a considerable increase in the expenditure this year. He should like to have the matter cleared up.

said, that the point raised by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was one worthy of consideration; because, undoubtedly, the main question did turn upon the diminution which was to occur when the change was made from local to Imperial management. He would refer the Committee to the Papers before them. The first decrease was shown as £6,000, in the case of victualling of prisons. That diminution had been regulated according to the expenditure of 1879–80. The next showed a decrease of £1,150. That reduction would be effected by taking up all the articles of clothing used by the prisoners. Item G showed an increase in six or seven prisons in regard to appliances and furniture—such as bedding, &c. Item H showed the same estimate as that of previous years. Item L, which was for soap and scouring articles, showed a decrease of £1,100 from that of the previous year. The whole, he believed, would show a considerable decrease from former years. As to the question, What had been the effect of the transfer?—they could not obtain a fair judgment as to the result. His hon. and learned Friend had referred to the estimated product of prison labour for the years 1879–80 as being £60,000. He (Mr. Arthur Peel) did not hesitate to say that that Estimate had been made on wholly unreliable data. It was impossible to arrive at anything like an accurate estimate of that labour, by comparing the few years during which the new system had been in existence with the same number of years under the old system. The question, after all, was—were they tending in the direction of economy? He thought that economy had resulted from the change. His right hon. and learned Friend had referred in his speech to the pay of the staff and the reductions that had been made. The pay of those officers amounted to two-fifths of the whole cost of prison management. He believed that as much as £30,000 would be saved by the reductions that would be made without there being any decrease in the efficiency. In the case of small prisons, it had been found that a great many of them were over-stocked with officers, and the staffs would henceforward be adjusted to the requirements of the prisons. He really was of opinion that greater efficiency and econony would be the result of the transfer. The problem of prison labour was very difficult to settle, because it depended in a great measure upon the value of the labour which had to be fully ascertained. The prisons would shortly be placed upon a uniform footing, and the authorities would be able in a few years to actually determine what was the value of the labour. He was bound to say that they were progressing in the direction of economy; but the Act of 1877 must have been in operation three or four years before they could attempt to make any fair comparison between the state of things before and after the passing of the Act.

suggested that Visiting Justices should have the power to report to the Quarter Sessions by whom they were appointed, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department knew their reports, at present, were only confidential communications to the Home Office. The protection which prisoners ought to have was the protection of publicity. An independent authority should look over the prisons, and be able to report any irregularities and suggest any alterations. It was a very simple matter, and it would not interfere at all with the present arrangements, or the authority of the Prison Commissioners; but it would be the means of checking abuses, of affording a protection to prisoners, and satisfaction to the public.

said, he felt strongly the enormous importance of investing the office of Visiting Justices with dignity; because dignity was mostly dependent upon responsibility, and responsibility must also depend, in some degree, upon the power to correct abuses. He fully recognized the difficulty of the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt), in having to reconcile the Act of Parliament with the due performance of his duty; but he had not the slightest doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would, after that discussion, do his best to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen. One point had already been submitted to him; and it had been touched upon by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac). It was, that the "progressive stage" system did not appear applicable to other than convict prisons, and, therefore, it should be discontinued in ordinary prisons; and that more power,—which, indeed, they formerly enjoyed—should be given to the Visiting Justices of affording money aid to prisoners on their discharge. He, however, only wished to call attention to these subjects, because he did not wish it to be lost sight of. While they were upon the question of Visiting Justices, the Committee surely would not begrudge a few minutes' time, while he endeavoured to put the main point, as he hoped, more clearly before the public mind. He was one of those who was strongly opposed to the Act of Centralization in regard to the prisons of the country; but, as the Act had passed, he was bound to submit himself, and endeavour to give it every chance, so that its excellencies might become apparent, or its defects might be remedied. He believed he would be borne out by many hon. Gentlemen when he asserted that there were places in this Kingdom where, in consequence of the passing of the Act, the appointment of Visiting Justices had ceased. That was a very great public disadvantage. He thought they were all ready to concede that that was so. They knew, however, that the time of the Secretary of State for the Home Department was fully occupied with many important matters of State, and that it must be very difficult indeed for him to steal a few moments in which to consider these much wider questions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had to fight a very strong Department. He (Mr. Hopwood) used the familiar expression "fight," though he did not mean to say there was anything like insubordination on the part of the officials. They all knew that if a strong Department, like the one in question, were appointed, with a strong man at the head, having military ideas of discipline, it would have its own views of the subject; and it would be difficult for even a Secretary of State to bend such officials. He (Mr. Hopwood) recollected that his right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross), had found it a difficult matter. He (Mr. Hopwood) remembered attending a conference at which that right hon. Gentleman distinctly promised he would set forth, in writing, the duties which he thought Visiting Justices might well be charged with without at all interfering with the Prison Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman's wish was that the duties of the one should not clash with those of the other; and, it might be, that he had so set forth the duties of the Visiting Justices; but his (Mr. Hopwood's) impression was that he had not. He, no doubt, found the task a very difficult one indeed. To carry out his argument, he (Mr. Hopwood) had to introduce some peculiar matter. Lancashire could fairly boast of having a number of well-regulated prisons. He believed there were none better regulated in the country. He would not say there were not prisons as well regulated, for it was possible that the one with which his hon. Friend (Mr. Magniac) was connected, and indeed others, were as well managed. Lancashire Justices, however, had a great reputation for the way in which they had managed their gaols, and that was especially so in the case of the Strange ways Prison at Salford. The case of this gaol would serve to illustrate the difficulty of which he had spoken. The Prison Commissioners were supposed to be appointed with due regard to their qualifications; but, in his (Mr. Hopwood's) judgment, if he might venture to indulge in criticism, it would be better if the decided preference for the appointment of military or naval officers were modified or abandoned. He did not consider that military or naval men, by their training, were any more adapted to the government of prisons than any enlightened civilian who might have had his attention turned to this matter. He could conceive that a man acquainted with law might be, in many respects, a priori, better qualified than a military man. He could also conceive that in these days, when attention was seriously turned to what could be manufactured in the gaols of the country, a man having some mercantile or manufacturing knowledge would be a valuable addition to a prison staff. It was a fact, however, that preference was given to military men, and he knew that the Justices, in former days, gave preference to men of that kind. He (Mr. Hopwood) thought that, in the future, it would be well to introduce into prison management other qualifications as well as military and naval. He had in his mind particularly the case of the Strangeways Prison at Salford. The Visiting Justices of that prison had had considerable correspondence with his right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for the Home Department. The right hon. Gentleman knew every one of them personally, and he knew perfectly well how competent they were to govern a prison. That they were competent was fully proved by the fact that they had managed the gaol with such remarkable success. They had shown that it would be well to vest in Visiting Justices higher duties and greater responsibilities than they at present possessed. He (Mr. Hopwood) feared that, in consequence of their representations, there might have been some little difficulty produced between them and the Prisons Commissioners. If the Commissioners imagined for a moment that the Justices were stepping beyond their province, there was no answer given to any of their inquiries save such as seemed to say "mind your own business," or "the Act of Parliament describes so and so, and you have nothing to do with it." That was not the sort of answer calculated to produce cordial co-operation. It was quite possible for the Commissioners to so conduct themselves towards the Visiting Justices as to very greatly facilitate their own labour; for he could not but imagine that gentlemen of such eminence as the Prison Commissioners would wish to govern the gaols with every regard to humanity and to local ideas and experience, and none knew better the ideas and wants of the locality than the Visiting Justices. He was not at all satisfied that the wishes of the people of the district of Salford, in respect of the gaol, were at all consulted. The Visiting Justices, for instance, were told that they could not see the prison books. They appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the answer given was, of course, that they must see the books. They inquired of the Governor, a gentleman of high repute, who was appointed by themselves—in consequence of his de- meanour and the reticent attitude he adopted towards them—whether he was under orders not to hold communication with them? He said that he would write up to the Commissioners, and did so, and their answer was, that the Justices were to be referred to the Act of Parliament. That was an unfortunate sort of reply. Some time ago it was his misfortune, though he nevertheless felt it to be his duty, to ask a Question in that House, in regard to the First Commissioner and his behaviour to the gate-warder of the Salford Gaol. It seemed to have occurred to the Commissioners that the information he (Mr. Hopwood) had obtained had been given by the Governor, and an Inspector was sent down to sit in judgment upon him. He was acquitted; but what occurred next? No one knew for what reason, but a gentleman was appointed and sent down as deputy-Governor of the prison. The Governor had always managed the prison well; he had never lost the confidence of the Justices, and it was to be hoped that he had in no sense lost the confidence of the Prison Commissioners. There might be some explanation for the appointment of deputy-Governor; but he (Mr. Hopwood) was at a loss to see what it could be. The gentleman appointed to that position remained at the gaol for some time, and he seemed to have been a little odd in his notions of his duties. He (Mr. Hopwood) believed he came from the Navy; at any rate, it was evident that he had had no training to fit him as deputy-Governor of a prison, if they might judge from the entries he made in the official journal. For instance, on the 20th of March, he entered—"Oxford and Cambridge boat-race postponed until Monday, on account of fog." On another occasion, the 8th of April, he wrote—"I was sent for by the Committee, the members present being as follows"—and then were given the names—

"And asked by the Chairman if I had had any private correspondence with one of the Commissioners, or the Commission, since I had been in this prison on our prison matters. I answered I did not consider the question was a proper one to answer, and I declined to answer it. Nothing further passed."

There was appended this note—"Are the days of the Inquisition come back?" On the 28th of May, there was to be found this entry—"The Derby—1st, Bend Or; 2nd, Robert the Devil," and so forth. And that was the sort of thing this gentleman entered in his journal. He considered that a very strict watch should be kept upon the exercise of patronage by the Commissioners in appointments of this kind, and especially as they had to deal with gentlemen who were trying to do their duty as Justices. In such a case as this a little "meddling" on the part of the Visiting Justices was very desirable. In consequence of statements of his own at another prison of what he had done at Strangeways, an inquiry was held on this same gentleman in respect of conduct he was alleged to have exhibited towards a female prisoner. The Prison Commissioners sent down an Inspector; but from the inquiry both the Governor of the gaol, and the Visiting Justices were excluded. They were not allowed to know what passed; but eventually an order came down exonerating the deputy-Governor, and he had since been appointed to preside over another of Her Majesty's gaols—Morpeth. It was in cases of this kind, too, that a little more inquiry, a little more meddling by the Visiting Justices, would do much to obviate unpleasantness. He had now finished what he had risen to say. It was not agreeable to him to bring these things forward; but he remembered the unprotected state of the prisoners in the gaols of the country. However little those prisoners might have entitled themselves to the commiseration of society, society could not forget its duty towards them, and when any hon. Gentleman became acquainted with what displayed defective prison management, it was his duty to lay the facts before the Committee.

hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hopwood) would not expect him, on the 16th of August, to enter into all the differences between the Visiting Justices and the Prison Commissioners. When he came into Office he found a very unsatisfactory state of things. He was glad, however, to say that in the course of the last two or three months he had had no complaints whatever from the Visiting Justices of the Strange ways Prison. He hoped that if they had anything to complain of in the future, they would at once communicate with the Home Office, who would do what they could to have the grievances remedied. No doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hopwood) would be satisfied with that assurance.

said, that it was hardly fair on the part of the Government to bring forward these Estimates at the end of the Session, and then to deprecate full discussion. He reminded the Secretary of State for the Home Department and his Colleagues that the Opposition were not in the least responsible for that state of Business. He would like to take that opportunity to press the right hon. and learned Gentleman for a little information as to the cost of the prisons now as compared with their cost before the passing of the Prisons Act of 1877. There was some inconvenience, he admitted, in discussing that point in the absence of the late Secretary of State (Sir R. Assheton Cross). He (Lord Randolph Churchill) greatly regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not found it convenient to be in his place, because the policy of the late Government in respect to prisons was now brought into question. They were told, at the time of the passing of the Prisons Act in 1877, that the cost of the prisons in England and Wales was something under £500,000, and that the result of the Bill introduced by the late Government would be to effect a saving, roughly speaking, of £100,000 a-year. What did they find? They found that since that Bill was passed, the number of prisons in England and Wales had been reduced from 130 to 66, and that the 66 prisons were now costing within a very few thousand pounds of what the 130 prisons which were taken over by the State cost. Instead of there being a saving of £100,000, as they were led to believe, there was really no saving at all; neither was there any compensation for the great loss of independence and general supervision which the counties formerly exercised in the management of prisons. What he wanted to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department was whether he considered that the present Estimate of £469,000, or, in round figures, £470,000, was to be the amount of the Vote which would be demanded annually for the maintenance of the 66 prisons; or did it appear to him that the charge would admit of any great reduction in the future? That was a point upon which he had no doubt the Committee would like to be enlightened.

said, that he cordially supported the late Secretary of State for the Home Department in the reform which he introduced in reference to prisons, not only as a measure of economy, but to ensure uniformity in the management. Although he fully admitted that sufficient time had not yet been given to effect the economies expected, he hoped that some evidence would soon be given that efforts not only were being made to effect the saving promised, but also as to the success in attaining the object for which the change had been made. He desired to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury to the discreditable manner in which the Prisons Estimate was framed. It was prepared in a most slovenly manner; for, excepting in two cases, they had no details of the expenditure, and by its form it was calculated to destroy the power of comparison. The Comptroller General, in his 1st Report on the Prisons Expenditure, complained of the absence of all details, except in the two items—salaries of officers, and salaries of Commissioners. He (General Sir George Balfour) regretted very much that in previous years he had not objected to this objectionable mode of stating the expenditure; but he had not done so, because he naturally had thought that the Treasury would have profited by experience and by the censure passed by the Comptroller General, and have furnished them with all the necessary details so essential for comparing the transactions of different years. For instance, they could not come to any exact idea as to the cost of prisoners maintained in the several prisons in the United Kingdom. This omission was more noteworthy, because in the case of soldiers, the House of Commons demanded to have a Return furnished to them of the exact number of soldiers maintained, together with the details of expenditure, to show their cost, and so forth; but although the Committee might wish for a change in the details of the Prison Estimate, yet it was not furnished to them. He regretted to say that this was not the only instance in which an Estimate was slovenly prepared; and he trusted that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Trea- sury—who, he (General Sir George Balfour) admitted, was not responsible, because they were those of the late Government—would take care that next year the Committee would be provided with all necessary information. He (General Sir George Balfour) had a strong conviction that the duties of the Comptroller General were not allowed to be performed with the proper fulness, because he was tied down to particular forms of account prescribed by the Treasury. He was sure that, if it were in his power, the Auditor and Comptroller General would be glad to give them details in an exact manner; for no one could read the long Report he made upon the 1st Prison Estimate and Account without noticing his desire to furnish the fullest information to the House of Commons.

said, that he should be the first to acknowledge that he was wrong if he were to say that in the course of the three months he had been in Office he had succeeded in making himself master of all the matters relating to prisons. He hoped, however, if he were in Office next year, to turn his attention to the subject. At present, he could only tell the Committee that he had no further evidence beyond that which he had derived from the Report of the Prison Commissioners. From that Report, it would be found that the cost of maintaining 20,361 prisoners in the year 1877 was £526,837; while in the year 1879–80, the total number of prisoners was estimated at 20,600, and the sum to be expended at £472,000. The sum now actually voted was £468,000, and comparing the sum for which they now asked, with the sum asked for in last year of the old system, the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) would see that the reduction had been £56,000 a-year. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: 66 prisons against 130.] The number of prisoners was practically the same, and yet for managing the same number of prisoners they found a reduction of £56,000 a-year. That was a reduction which was certainly worth making. Of course, he was not responsible for the Estimates of the late Secretary of State for the Home Department; but the result was gratifying, inasmuch as, under the new system, there was already a reduction of £56,000 a-year. The Commissioners told them that it must be borne in mind that they were now passing through a period of transition, and that the full effect of the change could not be experienced for several years to come. He had every reason to suppose that the economy would be greater in the future. He did not want to commit himself to an opinion which he could not really give; be would only say, therefore, that the Commissioners thought that further economies might be realized hereafter.

wished the Secretary of State for the Home Department to give him some information as to the economy practised in respect to Roman Catholic chaplains. So long as the prisons in England were under local authorities and subject to the jealousies of local Justices, there was some excuse for the irregularities and inequalities which existed; but now that the prisons in England had been placed under Government control, he would like to have some explanation as to the principle which guided them in respect to the salaries paid to Roman Catholic chaplains. Turning to Ireland, he found that in the County of Cavan, according to the Return he obtained last year, there were 24 Catholic prisoners, and the salary paid to the Catholic chaplain was £30 a-year; that there were three Protestant prisoners, and the salary paid to their chaplain was £30 a-year; and that a similar salary was paid to the Presbyterian chaplain. In the County of Louth, which he had the honour to represent, he found that the average number of Catholics in prison in 1879 was 53, and that the Catholic chaplain received £36 18s. 6d.; that there were 5 Protestant prisoners, and that the Protestant chaplain received a like amount; that the number of Presbyterians was equally small, and that the chaplain received annually a like sum. He did not complain of this inequality, because he held that when they imprisoned a man, they were obliged to provide for him some religious ministration. For instance, in Longford, in Ireland, a Presbyterian chaplain had been paid £30 a-year for the last 20 years, although there had never been a single Presbyterian prisoner in the gaol. That circumstance was very creditable to Presbyterianism, and equally creditable to the Grand Jury of the county, who had so long voted that salary to the Presbyterian chaplain out of the county rates. When he turned to England, the prisons of which were under the direct management of the Home Secretary, what did he find? He found that there were 70 chaplains, paid sums varying from £350 to £100 a-year. In Bedford Gaol, there were on the average 75 Catholic prisoners, against 341 Protestant prisoners; £250 a-year was paid to the Protestant chaplain; but there was not one single penny paid to the Catholic priest. What was the state of matters in Dissenting Wales? In Cardiff Prison, there were 49 Catholic and 127 Protestant prisoners; £216 a-year was paid annually to the Protestant chaplains, but not one penny to the Catholic. Turning to the North of England, what happened? In Carlisle Prison, there were 37 Catholic and 105 Protestant prisoners; £175 was paid to the Protestant chaplain, but not one penny to the Catholic. Now, he came to Chester, in respect to which model City one would imagine the Government would be able to afford them some information. He found that in that Gaol, there were 62 Catholic prisoners and 116 Protestants; £350 a-year was paid to the Protestant chaplain—something like £3 per head—a capitation grant with a vengeance; and not one penny was paid to the Catholic chaplain, although he attended regularly every day. Now, that could not escape the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, because the Return from which he was quoting had been in the hands of hon. Members for the last three months. But now he came to Coldbath Fields Prison, where he found an even greater disparity. There were 1,380 Protestant prisoners upon the average, and the standing salary of the chaplain was £400 a-year; but he received allowances in the shape of assistance of £5 5s. a-week, and in November and December at £3 3s. a-week, making a total allowance of £175; so that altogether, for the ministrations to Protestants in Coldbath Fields Prison, there was paid a sum of £575 a-year. In the same prison there were 396 Catholics; but not one penny was paid to a Catholic chaplain. These prisoners had been denied, as far as they could be, the ministrations of religion. Was that creditable to a Liberal Government? Now, in Durham there were 94 Catholic prisoners, and the salary paid to the Catholic chaplain was £70 a-year; there were 524 Protestants' and their chaplain received £250 a-year-But why, in the case of the Durham Prison, which was under the same control, and was responsible to the same Home Secretary, should they pay £70 a-year for religious ministrations to 94 Catholics, and refuse an allowance to a Roman Catholic chaplain ministering in Coldbath Fields Prison to the 396 Catholics? Let them now take the case of Hull. There were 90 Catholic prisoners—within four of the number at Durham—and 292 Protestants. In Durham, for ministering to 524 Protestants, they paid a chaplain £250 a-year, while in Hull they paid the Protestant chaplain, for ministering to half the number, £280 a-year, being £30 more. They, however, made up for that illiberal economy in the case of Hull by not paying a single penny to the Catholic chaplain. He asked, again, if that was creditable to a Liberal Government which, on many occasions, was apt to look for support from the Catholic Members? In Lancaster there were 130 Protestants, and the Protestant chaplain was paid £310 a-year. There were 61 Catholics, but their chaplain was not paid a penny. In Newgate, he found that there was no record kept of the religion of the prisoners; but they did not forget to take care to pay £500 a-year to a Protestant chaplain attending the prison. In Monmouth there were 25 Catholic prisoners, and the chaplain was paid £20 a-year; there were 220 Protestants, to whose chaplain was paid £220. He hoped he should be forgiven if he had spoken strongly upon this subject. He trusted that in any future economies effected in prisons, the just claims of the Catholic chaplains would be taken into consideration. He would not like to bring this matter upon Report; but unless some satisfactory explanation was given, he felt they must resist the Vote by going to a division.

hoped the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) would not hold the Liberal Government responsible for arrangements which were made before they took Office. All he would say was, that the information which had been laid before him by the hon. Member was as useful as it was new. He must ask the hon. Gentleman, however, to indulge him by thinking that during the last three months he had had a good many subjects with which to occupy his time. He had not been able to give this subject that care and attention it deserved. The relative proportions of Roman Catholic and Protestant prisoners, and the salaries paid to prison chaplains, was, he was quite ready to reckon, a very important matter. The hon. Member for Louth had pointed out that in some places ample provision was made for religious ministrations, but that in other places that was not so. He was not in a position at that moment to give the hon. Gentleman that explanation which he properly required. The matter, however, to which attention had been directed should have consideration at his hand. He remembered very well that in the old days, when the management of prisons was in the hands of county magistrates, there was a great deal of religious and Party feeling in the question. He was quite sure that no one would suppose that the Executive Government, in dealing with this matter, would be in the least guilty of the charge of any such considerations. If the hon. Gentlemen representing the Catholic population would leave the, matter in the hands of the Government, they would endeavour to deal with it in a satisfactory manner.

said, it was perfectly true that the present Government could not be held responsible for their Predecessors. The Return from which the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had quoted was of very great value, serving to show, as it did, that the position in which the Catholic chaplains were placed in Ireland did not correspond with the position of Protestant chaplains in England. In Ireland, Protestant chaplains had to minister to a minority; not as the Catholic chaplain did in England, but, as a matter of fact, they found that not only did Protestant chaplains in Ireland secure for themselves a very much larger sum than even Catholic priests in Ireland, but in England the amount given to Catholic chaplains was scarcely anything, in some cases nothing at all. According to the Return obtained by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), he found that in England the Protestant chaplains were paid at the rate of 30s. per head, while the Catholic chaplains received less than 18s. a-head. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary intend to establish anything like a capitation rate to operate equally in the Three Countries? If such a system were established, he could say that the Catholic priests would be perfectly satisfied. There was another point to which he must call attention, and it was this—that in the Appendix to these Estimates, there was a statement of the pay to be voted on the new scale for the different prison officers, and in that Appendix it would be seen that five chaplains were to be paid from £350 to £400. The Return moved for by his hon. Friend (Mr. Callan) showed that there were now chaplains receiving salaries at that rate. Furthermore, the Return gave £200 as the maximum salary to Catholic chaplains in any gaol—that was to say, the maximum salary for priests was only to be half the salary of Protestant chaplains. At the Liverpool Gaol, however, the Catholic chaplain was in receipt of £300 a-year, so that the arrangements detailed in the Appendix were not recognized.

had no wish to minimize the importance of the point raised by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan). In respect, however, to the suggestion to establish a capitation grant, he would say that, in many cases, such a system would act very unfairly. In many cases the Catholic priest would be very unfairly paid, because a man's time and labour could not be measured by the number of his co-religionists in the gaol. If there were five Catholic prisoners, the chaplain would have as much work as if there were 200. The best general principle to act upon was, that there should be some fixed sum laid down.

said, that during the progress of the Prisons Bill through the House, he paid considerable attention to the discussion upon the question of Visiting Justices. The primary object of that Bill was not an improvement in prison discipline, or the position of Visiting Justices, but it was to take the expenses of the gaols off the local rates, and put it upon the general rates of the country. The Visiting Justices were not, in his opinion, quite so innocent a set of gentlemen as some of the previous speakers would lead the Committee to believe, and he certainly did not think they were the best persons to be intrusted with the inspection of prisons, or to see that the night poachers and others who might be convicted under the Summary Jurisdiction Act received lenient treatment. Some better treatment might, he contended, be devised, under the operation of which prisoners would be enabled to bring the grievances of which they complained under the notice of the outside public. The Visiting Justices had but very little authority, and no inducement to attend to the duties which they were supposed to perform; and they were the very worst court of appeal before which the complaints which an unfortunate prisoner might have to make of ill-treatment could be brought. A proposal was under consideration when the Prisons Act was passed through the House, that some sort of general Report should from time to time be issued, by which the public should be made acquainted with the nature of those complaints; but that proposal had not been adopted, and the result was that the prisoners were left entirely at the mercy of men whose statements might, for all the House knew, be either true or false, for the inquiry was conducted in private in those cases, and there were no means of ascertaining whether justice was done to the prisoners, or whether they were not handed over to the tender mercies of the Visiting Justices, to be dealt with as might seem to them best. There ought, therefore, he maintained, to be some more independent and impartial tribunal to rely upon. Every magistrate ought, he thought, to have access to the prisons within his county, and Members of that House should be afforded an opportunity of seeing for themselves what was going on within their walls. Members of Parliament held officially a much higher position than that occupied by the Justices, who had no representative character whatever of counties; and if they were permitted to visit and inspect prisons, a very strong guarantee against the occurrence of abuses might in that way be provided. It was possible, as matters now stood, that great injustice might be inflicted on a prisoner, for which he could obtain no redress; and it should be open to him to be able to make his complaints heard by some independent tribunal, instead of being dealt with by a small knot of men who were, no doubt, in their way, very estimable, but who were imbued with all the prejudices of their class.

expressed himself as being quite satisfied with the assurances which he had received from his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

said, that the figures which he had brought under the notice of the Committee were, he believed, perfectly correct; and pointed out that while the Irish Prison Department had furnished the Return which had been ordered by the House in a manner which made it, as far as he could see, most trustworthy, the Return made by the English Department was, on the contrary, of a ridiculous character; for, instead of the average, it gave the total number of prisoners. But his argument remained the same. Whatever mistake there might be was due to the fault of the English Prison Department, by which, however, the Return sent in by the Irish Department was in no way affected. He must express regret that the Home Secretary, while taking care to remind the Committee that he could not hold himself responsible for the action of the late Government, yet had not given the slightest promise that the injustice which had been brought to his notice should be considered and redressed.

said, he did not mean for a moment to dispute the propriety, where there were a large number of Roman Catholic prisoners, of having someone to attend to their religious wants; and what his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had stated was, that while he could not hold himself responsible for the system which had been transferred to the present Government by their Predecessors in Office, he would give the subject his careful consideration. He might, however, inform the Committee that he happened to know that the Commissioners of Prisons had a scheme in contemplation, in the nature of a capitation grant for the Roman Catholic chaplains; but it was obvious that any change of the kind which might be introduced ought to be made only after full inquiry, for injustice might otherwise be done to certain localities, and the scheme might, in the case of small prisons, operate very unfairly.

wished, before making any remark on the question of chaplaincies, to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) to the fact, as appeared from the Estimates, that there was an officer of Royal Engineers employed in connection with the Prison Commissioners Office who was paid a sum of £600 per annum. He should like to know whether that officer was also in receipt of his Army pay, and who he was? Because his experience warranted him in believing that such positions given to officers and ex-officers belonging to the Army and Navy were, generally speaking, mere sinecures, and that those gentlemen, however brave they might be in the field, were in no way well qualified to discharge the duties of an important character in prisons. They were brought up under a very severe and strict system of discipline; and although in prisons strict and even severe discipline ought to be maintained, it ought to be tempered to some extent with mercy. As a journalist, he had obtained considerable knowledge of all sorts of prisons, and he had been led to the conclusion that ex-Army and Navy men were most unfit to take charge of, or in any way to exercise superintendence over, such institutions. As to the question of the remuneration of Roman Catholic chaplains, he could not help expressing his regret at the remarks upon that subject, considerate though they were, which had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The right hon. and learned Gentleman informed the Committee that he would give to the question his best attention; but Governmental consideration, so far as his (Mr. Finigan's) experience went, was almost entirely without value. Such consideration became a reality only when it was thoroughly pressed home. It had been stated on the part of the Government that the Commissioners of Prisons had prepared a Report, based on the principle of a capitation grant, 'for the payment of the Roman Catholics chaplains in prisons; but, if the question had not been pressed upon the attention of the Government, the Committee would have been left in ignorance of that fact. Some proof was thus afforded, he contended, that until hon. Members of that House, whether Tories or Liberals, or belonging to the Third or Fourth Party, assumed a firm and decided position, they would be likely to get from Ministers very little either in the way of information or concession. It was a most unjust thing, he maintained, that men should be asked to perform certain duties for the benefit of the nation, and that they should not be paid for the services which they rendered. He should be the very last man in that House, Catholic though he was, to refuse a single penny to any minister of any denomination so long as he was doing some State service. To him it did not matter at what altar a man might kneel, or in what form he might worship his God; so long as he did a duty recognized by the State, he would advocate his right to be paid for the discharge of that duty, and he hoped the Secretary of State for the Home Department, acting on the same principle, would not merely take the matter into consideration, but would promise that justice should be done all round. He urged that the question should be settled on a final and equitable basis, and that Roman Catholic clergymen, as well as those belonging to the Protestant or any other religion, who ministered to the religious wants of the prisoners in their gaols, should be proportionately paid. He had the pleasure of being personally acquainted with the Catholic chaplain of the Liverpool Gaol, to which attention had been called; he had known him for a very longtime, and he could say that manifest injustice would be done by reducing that gentleman's salary by one penny. He had, it was true, a comfortable house provided for him; but the showers of charity which he poured forth to all classes of prisoners was well-known to every Liverpool man, and left him but poor indeed. He had rendered eminent services to Liverpool; he assisted every charitable movement for local objects, whether organized by Protestants or Catholics; and it would, in his (Mr. Finigan's) opinion, be doing a great wrong to such a man to impose upon him, as it were, a fine, because, mistakes having been made in the past, the present Government thought it necessary to sacrifice someone. It was said that throughout Lancashire the people were very generous; he had been in Lanca- shire, and had found there a very large number of friends. But he was not aware that any Catholic chaplain was paid in that county excepting at Liverpool; for while for 130 Protestant prisoners the Protestant chaplain received £300, for 61 Catholic prisoners—and the Committee knew that whenever there were Catholic prisoners the Catholic Church compelled its priests to visit them—the Roman Catholic clergyman did not, he believed, receive 61 pence; and he hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) would adhere to his Resolution, and go to a division. And if that course did not bring the Government to a sense of justice in the matter, he would suggest one or two more divisions, and so ultimately achieve a result which was only to be attained by means of independent opposition.

said, there was one point to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department before the Vote was agreed to. He referred to the use of plank beds in prisons. It seemed to him to be a species of additional torture to the prisoners, and in no sense capable of being justified. He should not delay the Committee by dwelling further on the matter on that occasion; but if no change were made before next Session with regard to the use of those beds, he should endeavour to see whether some effectual opposition could not be made to the continuance of such a system.

hoped the Government would consider the question as to the payment of Roman Catholic chaplains in a liberal spirit.

felt bound to say, on behalf of the Members of the late Government, that the proposal which he had made on the subject had been received by them in a very fair and considerate manner, and that he had no doubt that if they had remained in Office, they would, whatever might have been their faults, have fulfilled this year, in the letter and in the spirit, the undertakings which they had given him with reference both to prisons and workhouses. A great deal had been done with regard to prisons, and he felt satisfied that a great deal more was about to be done; but the state of affairs in workhouses continued to be scandalously bad. Speaking, as he thought he might, on behalf of the Roman Catholic authorities in this country, who had placed the matter in his hands, he would say that he believed the wisest course to adopt in order to insure justice and fair play was to confide in the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, he was sure, would, between that time and the spring of next Session, give to the subject not a Pickwickian, but a just and honest consideration. For his own part, he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had confidence in the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the President of the Local Government Board, that he had no doubt that it would be so considered. He might add that he had never signed a cheque with greater pleasure than one for the salary of the Protestant Dissenting clergyman connected with the Prison in Dublin, and that his salary had been paid when there was not in the prison a single prisoner belonging to his religous denomination. What he asked for was fair play and nothing more.

said, that if he did not receive something more than a promise that the subject which he had brought under the notice of the Committee should have the consideration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he should, however reluctantly, deem it to be his duty to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £116, so as to reduce the pay of the Protestant chaplain at Chester from £3 per head of the prisoners, to £2 per head, the rate at which the Roman Catholic chaplain was paid. If he received a pledge—and he would accept one from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) himself, if he were in an official position—that the Government would give careful consideration to the matter, he would not divide the Committee. But he would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department not to wrap himself up in stoical indifference, but to ascertain whether or not the glaring injustice he (Mr. Callan) had described really existed, and, if he found that it did, to rectify it. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not give him a pledge on the matter, he would be obliged to move the reduction of the Vote.

said, he would make inquiries to ascertain whether any injustice of the kind existed, and redress if it did. He was unable to state the exact sum which would be given, or the exact principle on which the payment would be made, and that was really all he could say on the subject. He could assure the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) that he was not "wrapped in stoical indifference" on this matter, and he trusted that a division would not take place, the only result of which, if the hon. Member were successful, would be to negative, by the House of Commons, the payment of the salary he proposed to the chaplain of Chester Gaol. He did not think that would be an effectual method of advancing the case the hon. Member had in hand, as it would render it much more difficult next year to propose the salary now suggested. If the hon. Gentleman wished to defeat his own object, the best way to do it was to follow the course he proposed.

said, the assurance he had received from the right hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly satisfactory; but, at the same time, he wished to remind him that he had not moved to reduce the Vote, but had only intimated that he was prepared to do so, unless an assurance were given. He would join with the hon. Member who had spoken some time ago (Mr. Finigan), and say that if there was to be a capitation grant, there should be a minimum amount fixed as a salary—say, £50 or £60 a-year. In Ireland there was no capitation grant; and the result had been that an unfavourable opinion had been engendered amongst all classes in that country; and though he had drawn attention to this £3,050, he had done it to show how things were in Ireland and how they were treated, compared with the state of things in England.

said, he believed that there were certain funds to be disposed of, arising from money given or bequeathed for the benefit of poor prisoners. The Charity Commissioners took cognizance, two years ago, of funds of this description—funds, if he were not mistaken, amounting to £7,000 or £8,000 a-year. But, besides that amount, there were other sums which had been bequeathed for the same purpose, but which were not included in the Return published by the Charity Commission. If he was correctly informed, there had been a correspondence between the Charity Commissioners and the Prison authorities, as to the proper distribution of this money. Perhaps the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish), or the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would inform the Committee whether anything had been decided as to the appropriation of this money, and whether it would be taken in aid of the Prison Vote or in aid of the local rates, which it used to be taken in aid of, before the prisons were handed over to the new authority?

Does the hon. Member know that the sums to which he alludes come under this Vote?

They certainly do, because the correspondence to which I have referred took place in connection with this Vote.

thought the hon. Member was mistaken. The correspondence the Treasury had had was with reference to the sum to be given to the Discharged Prisoners Aid Society, some £2,000 or £3,000 a-year, and the amount for gratuities to prisoners, £6,000 a-year. The Treasury were about to sanction an expenditure of £2,000 or £3,000 in addition to the sums mentioned.

regretted that the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Peel) had risen to answer him. He would rather have an explanation from the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; because, while he had been speaking, the noble Lord had nodded to him, as much as to say—"You are quite right." It was with regard to this Vote that the correspondence he had alluded to occurred. If the noble Lord would refer to the last Re-port of the Public Accounts Committee, he would see that the Committee had thought this matter of sufficient importance to report specially upon it to that House. The Committee pointed out that the appropriation of this money was, in many cases, extremely unsatisfactory; and they further stated that the bequests were of considerable amount, as appeared from the two Returns of the Comptroller and Auditor General. If they turned to the Account, they would find that, of the money bequeathed for the benefit of impoverished prisoners, £303 was distributed in various ways other than on prisoners, and that £168 was not distributed at all for want of a proper object to spend it on. Then there was the sum of £185 10s., an undefined portion of which was only applicable to prisoners, but no part of it whatsoever was applied to that object. It appeared that there was a considerable sum of money either given or bequeathed for these particular purposes, and for years, so far as he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) could ascertain, they had in part been misappropriated. There must be, somewhere or other, a considerable sum that had accumulated from want of appropriation, and he wished to know from the noble Lord, who seemed to have more knowledge than his Colleague on the question, whether he was aware of any accumulated fund arising from these resources on account of which no appropriations had been made? Did he know whether any decision had been been come to at the Treasury as to the future distribution of these funds? If something was not done, or if no satisfactory explanation was given, it appeared to him that the proper thing to do would be to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum not appropriated out of these gifts and bequests. There was a sum which hitherto had been taken in aid of local rates, which, if it were not applied to the benefit of prisoners, should be still taken in aid of local rates. The Government certainly should not have the benefit of the money. Perhaps the noble Lord would tell them whether any decision had been come to with regard to the matter?

said, the question, which was one of considerable difficulty, had come before the Public Accounts Committee, and had been dealt with by them in their Report. They fully admitted the difficulties of the case; and declared that, in their opinion, further information was necessary. They said that, from want of sufficient information, they could not suggest a definite course of action. The prison authorities, they said, should com-communicate on the subject with the Trustees in the several cases. He could promise the hon. Member that the matter would be carefully considered by the Government, and the best method of dealing with the funds would be ascertained.

suggested that the money should be applied in diminution of the general county rate. No doubt, many hon. Gentlemen would be glad to see the county rate diminished in that way. The Comptroller and Auditor General went fully into the matter, and the natural result ought to lead to improvement. He had no doubt that if the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury could get all the information obtainable, it would be found to fully bear out the suggestion of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor).

wished to know whether the Government could give any information as to relaxing the regulations with regard to the use of plank beds in prisons?

said, the subject had attracted the attention of the Government, and three or four weeks ago, he had had occasion to say that some relaxation had been made in the regulations with regard to the use of plank beds in prisons. They would not be used for the future in the case of young children, invalids, or in the case of prisoners over 60 years of age. As the hon. Member had called attention to the matter, he would see whether further relaxations could not be made in the use of these beds. He was not aware that the regulations at present existing were put in force with any undue harshness.

said, that before the Vote was passed, he wished to call attention to the very dif- ferent system of treatment which existed in institutions of this kind in England and in similar institutions in Ireland. The English Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum was represented in Ireland by the Dundrum Asylum; but the treatment received in them was very different. He found that for 485 inmates in Broadmoor there were 103 attendants, or 10 attendants for every 48 patients; whereas at Dundrum, where there were 190 patients, there were only 10 attendants to every 73. Not only had the attendants at Dundrum a great deal more work to do than those at Broadmoor, but the pay they received was miserably inadequate when measured by the English standard, and that in every grade. For the superior staff at Broadmoor they had a superintendent, a deputy superintendent, and an assistant medical officer. The first received £900 a-year, the next £460, and the last £220; or a total for the superior staff of £1,580. The whole superior staff at Dundrum received only £760, and the staff consisted of a resident physician and governor, a visiting physician, and an assistant resident medical officer. The highest salary was only £440, against £900 at Broadmoor. The steward, and foremen of works, and farm bailiff—who did not seem really to be a necessary officer—received £550; whilst at Dundrum, the same duties were performed by the storekeeper at a salary of £120, and a female assistant at a salary of £35. At Dundrum the head male servant received £60 a-year, and there were 13 male servants who cost £376 a-year, the salaries varying from £24 to £34 and averaging £29. The highest sum given at Dundrum—the amount given to the best and most experienced male servant—was less than the minimum paid to an assistant at Broadmoor. At Broadmoor, 31 assistant attendants received from £40 to £45, and 35 attendants from £45 to £50, the principal attendants from £60 to £74, while the chief attendant received £160. In other words, the average pay of the attendants at Broadmoor was more than double the average pay of attendants at Dundrum, though in the former asylum the servants did not do anything like the work that they did in the latter. At the Dundrum Asylum, the work as compared with that at Broadmoor was as seven to four. Even in such matters as gatekeepers, there was only one at Dun- drum who received £50 a-year; but at Broadmoor, there was one at £74, another at £50, and an assistant gatekeeper at £50. And so on, throughout the whole of the establishments, they would find very much the same thing. Whilst the Dundrum institution was starved, that at Broadmoor was pampered. Now, he objected very much to that system. It was the same system they found in Army establishments in connection with Army works, and in Navy establishments in connection with Dockyards. Invariably, they would find that where the British Government had to do work in England, of the same kind that it had to do in Ireland, it earned the title of "liberal" by a lavish expenditure of public money; but in the case of Ireland, where money had to be spent, they saw the same parsimonious-ness and unfairness whichever Party was in power. He must protest, as an Irish Member, against this different system of treatment for Ireland and England; and unless he got an assurance from the Treasury Bench that the Government would look into the matter, and would place the officials in the Dundrum Lunatic Asylum in a position which would not compare disadvantageously with that of the officials of Broadmoor, he should certainly divide the Committee against the Vote.

said, he was not able to compare the state of things at Dundrum with the state of things at Broadmoor with that amount of detail that the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would wish; but he thought he could show that there was no excessive expenditure at Broadmoor, or, that if there was, it would be rigidly examined into and prevented; therefore, he hoped the hon. Member would not divide the Committee. Year by year the Broadmoor Estimates were being reduced. If they took the Vote for 1874–5, it amounted to £36,884; and that had been brought down until, in the present financial year, it amounted only to £25,751. That was a large reduction; and when the character of the people confined in the asylum was taken into consideration, he did not think they would be of opinion that the expenditure on the staff of attendants was excessive. The officials at Broadmoor, he would remind the hon. Member, had to undertake duties of a very exceptional character, and, not only that, but they had to collect money from contributory parishes for the maintenance of lunatics in the asylum—as much as £6,500 a-year. This involved a large amount of collection. And——

asked whether there were not special officers for that duty?

said, there were special officers, but their salaries were included in the Vote. Every thing connected with Broadmoor was put in the Vote, and the rates paid were no higher than those paid in connection with other establishments. At present, the asylum had not its full number of inmates. There was accommodation for 563 patients; whereas, at present, the number detained was only 485. If, however, there was any part of the expenses that was thought to be extravagant, and anything in the manner of treating these criminal lunatics which was not considered desirable, there was a Commission sitting, of which he had the honour to be Chairman, which would go thoroughly into the matter. The Commission was going carefully into the question. It was composed of eminent Gentlemen, some of them from Scotland, and they were examining the best authorities. One of the objects of the Commission was to ascertain whether the Broadmoor Asylum fulfilled the object for which it was originally established. He hoped the hon. Member would not object to the Vote passing as it stood.

did not object to the Vote being taken; but there was one detail on which a remark might be useful. He saw mentioned in the Estimates a "farm and garden" attached to the asylum. There was no amount placed opposite to the "farm and garden," so that one might naturally suppose that no farm and garden existed. On the other side, however, of the page, there was a "farm bailiff" put down at a salary of £ 120 a-year—to look after this "farm and garden," no doubt, although the "farm and garden" apparently had no existence. There was another question which he should like to ask which bore reference to the one criminal lunatic in the Bethlem Hospital. It seemed to him curious why a man at Bethlem Hospital should find a place in this Vote; and he should like the hon. Member to make inquiries, and find out how it was that in the Broadmoor Asylum Vote, £65 was put down for the maintenance of a criminal lunatic in the Bethlem Hospital.

said, the hon. Member (Mr. Briggs) called attention to the fact that there was no charge opposite "farm and garden," and as there was a charge for a farm bailiff, he very naturally imagined that there was no farm for him to look after. This was not the case, however. There were both a debtor and creditor account with reference to the farm and garden which balanced each other. The farm was a most valuable adjunct to the Broadmoor Asylum. The medical officers spoke in the highest terms of the good effects of farm work and working in the garden even on the most violent of the criminal lunatics. Last year the amount received in respect of the farm and garden carried to the Account was £3,211, and the amount expended £3,207 odd, leaving a balance of £3 18s. 10d., which explained why there was no figure opposite "farm and garden." The hon. Member also asked why one criminal lunatic was detained in Bethlem Hospital? He had made inquiries into the peculiar circumstances of that case, and he had found that when the Bethlem Hospital was discontinued as a criminal lunatic asylum, one man who had been there many years, and had become attached to the place, pleaded so urgently with those whose duty it was to remove him that he might be permitted to remain in the old spot, that they yielded, and did not disturb him. The alternative would have been to have removed him to Broadmoor.

said, the chaplain of the Institution had a salary which increased by annual increments of £10 until it reached a sum of £400; and, just below, he found this very illiberal maximum—that the Catholic chaplain visiting received only £50 per annum; £50 was no fair salary whatever; it was not even enough for a minister going through the institution once a-week; and he would ask whether it was the intention of the present Liberal Government to be really practically liberal, or whether they only intended to be so in theory? He would certainly very much like to have some information upon these points.

believed it would be found that the Roman Catholic priest was only a visitor to the asylum, whereas the Protestant chaplain was regularly attached.

said he was quite aware of that.

said, he was not aware how many Roman Catholic inmates there were in the asylum.

remarked, that if he had been in the House when the last Vote was brought on, he should certainly have gone to a division upon it. He certainly thought that £50 was a very small sum, in this case, for the Roman Catholic priest, and he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would look into the matter between this and next year.

said, he had carefully avoided entering into a discussion on the Vote for Dundrum. He had simply pointed out that, with corresponding staffs, the pay and salary of the one contrasted in the most extraordinary way with the amount of pay and salary received by the other. All the remarks made by the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur Peel) about the responsibility and important and arduous character of the duties which were confided to the attendants at Broadmoor, equally applied to the staff at Dundrum, and they had as much claim to consideration as the other. He entirely concurred with the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member; but he wished to point out that where 10 attendants at Broadmoor had only 47 patients to look after, the same number of attendants at Dundrum had the responsibility of 70 patients upon them; and yet, nevertheless, they received only, on the average, about one-half of the pay. The hon. Gentleman said that a Committee or Commission had been appointed whose duty it was to look into the affairs at Broadmoor; and he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) thought it might be of advantage if the Committee or Commission had also in their power to inquire into the affairs at Dundrum, to secure that both institutions should be placed on the same footing. He should be perfectly satisfied with such an arrangement; but the hon. Gentleman had not told them that that was to be the case. He had no wish to reduce the Vote for Broadmoor in any unreasonable manner; but the hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that when, shortly, they came to the Vote for Dundrum, it would, not be competent for him to propose an increase. He could not propose an increase of an inadequate Vote; but the only thing left to him was to propose the reduction of a Vote which, as compared with the Vote for Dundrum, was monstrously and excessively unreasonable. If the Vote for Dundrum was only a reasonable Vote, then that for Broadmoor was far in excess of the requirements of the case. If, on the contrary, the Vote for Broadmoor was only reasonable, then, as he had said before, the institution at Dundrum was starved. But when they got to the Dundrum Vote, he should not be able to rectify matters by a Motion to increase the Vote; and the only course open to him was to move the reduction of the Vote for Broadmoor, unless he should obtain some assurance from Her Majesty's Government that the staff employed at Dundrum should, in future, receive the same consideration as that employed at Broadmoor.

said, the discussion which had taken place was an example of the fallacies into which they might be led by the practice of comparing separate Votes. Now, it so happened that the asylum at Broadmoor was a remarkably ill-arranged building, and a large staff of attendants was required to keep it up. He believed that the institution at Dundrum stood upon a very different footing; it was a building much better adapted to the purposes for which it was required, and, consequently, a smaller staff was necessary. Whatever might be the state of affairs in England, and the necessity of employing a large staff in a badly-arranged building, it was not necessary that they should have an increased staff in a well-arranged institution. He did not agree with the hon. Member as to his facts. An analysis of the sums granted for Broadmoor and Dundrum would show that, deducting from the English Vote the sum received for extras, the cost per head was near as possible what it was at Dundrum. At the same time, he had no doubt that if Broadmoor was now about to be constructed for its present purpose for the first time, it would be so arranged as to render a smaller staff necessary.

entirely dissented from the arithmetical calculations of the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish), although he admitted the extra receipts. He had no doubt, how-over, that Dundrum would compare favourably in every point of view with Broadmoor.

I wish to point out that, while it is not irregular to contrast or compare one Vote with another, it would not be regular to discuss Dundrum on the present occasion. It is not within the Vote we are now taking, and can only be used for the purpose of comparison.

Quite so; but there were two criminal lunatic asylums, in regard to which, in the one case, the attendant looked after more than seven patients a-piece; while, in the other case, the attendant only looked after four. No matter what might be the structural deficiencies of one establishment as compared with the other, it was perfectly plain that the responsibilities of one set of officials must be as great, at any rate, as those of the second; but, when they came to inquire into the matter, they found these overworked officials, who had each to look after seven lunatics, only received one-half of the pay that the officials of the other place got for looking after little more than one-half of the number. He should further like to know whether, if no such official was required at another institution, it was necessary to pay a Superintendent at Broadmoor £900 a-year? There was also a Deputy Superintendent with a salary of from £400 to £500. When the maximum was £450 a-year at another lunatic asylum, why was it necessary to have two officials at Broadmoor, each of whom extracted a salary to a larger amount? The whole of this Vote was extravantly drawn up. Looking at the charge for incidental expenses, there was an item for books and newspapers, whether for the inmates or officials did not appear, which amounted to £75. In no other lunatic asylum mentioned in the same Account would they find any item of the kind; but everything connected with the Broadmoor Asylum appeared to be extravagant. They were told that all these things were to be overhauled. He thought they required overhauling in some way; and whatever arrangements were made in regard to pay and prospects so far as one set of officials were concerned, the same arrangements should be made equally applicable to the other. He did not wish to see one set of officials cut down unduly, and another advanced unduly; but he thought that both should be put upon the same footing.

did not know whether the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had ever visited the asylum at Dundrum; but he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) lived in Ireland, and it so happened that a short time ago he went over Dundrum. He must say that he was much struck with the care and attendance and supervision exercised by a small staff over so large a number of patients. Upon making inquiries, he was informed that the wards were so arranged that the patients in one were left entirely in ignorance of what took place in another; but, at the same time, it was possible for the officials in a very brief period to isolate a ward entirely, and congregate all the attendants in one part of the building. He found that things were extremely well managed. Having asked how it was that so much business was done in the establishment by so small a staff, the answer he received was that a great deal of the work was done by the lunatic patients themselves. Owing to the admirable management of the Institution, they were able to employ patients who had committed the most frightful crimes—murder and so on—in the ordinary work of the Institution. The supervision, however, was most careful; and if, at any time, it was found desirable to have a large number of attendants at one spot, it could easily be done. It was further found that the lunatics themselves got on much better under this system of management than when they were constantly watched.

asked, if it was not possible to apply the admirable system of management, which, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General for Ireland), prevailed at Dundrum Asylum to the Institution at Broadmoor, which was comparatively so very expensive? He thought that the same system of isolation and economy and the same admirable mode of management which the hon. and learned Gentleman described, should be applied to all institutions of a similar character. He certainly failed to see any reason why they should not extend the admirable system at Dundrum, and apply it to Broadmoor.

said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) misunderstood the object of his remarks. He had not made any comparison whatever between the systems in the two Institutions. He had merely stated what he had himself seen at Dundrum.

said, he had already pointed out that it was the faulty construction of the building at Broadmoor that made it so expensive. The matter, however, had been investigated by a Commission. It was not possible for the inquiry to include all the asylums, because the question for consideration was mainly the charge to be apportioned to the localities and the charge to be borne by the State. One of the incidental parts of the inquiry was whether Broadmoor should be reserved for a special class of lunatics, or whether wards for the reception of lunatics should be attached to the different prisons throughout the country.

said, the question had more than once forced itself upon the attention of the House, whether it was necessary to keep up institutions of this kind, at very great expense, throughout the United Kingdom. He rejoiced to hear from the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. W. M. Johnson) that the Dundrum Institution was managed so well. He (Mr. Whitwell) had himself been over Broadmoor, and he had no doubt that, through the Commission which was now sitting, great improvements, of which the asylum was certainly capable, would be introduced. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that the work was of a peculiar nature, and required much care, anxiety, and attention. He was free to confess that he would not be an attendant in some of the wards at Broadmoor for any consideration. Many of the lunatics there excited the greatest commiseration. He trusted that they would now end the discussion. They were proposing the inspection of Broadmoor. They had received an assurance from the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland that Dundrum was very properly managed, and he hoped that some Member of the Broadmoor Commission would have an opportunity of inspecting Dundrum, in order to see if he could gain any information that would be useful if applied to Broadmoor. He trusted the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County would not press the question further.

said, it seemed to him, in looking over a list of the expenses connected with Broadmoor Asylum, that they were certainly too high. With regard to several of them, the amount charged in the Estimate was quite absurd. For instance, the superintendent received £900 a-year; in addition, he presumed to a house and provisions, and so on. It certainly appeared to be a very liberal salary, and he failed to see what occasion there was for a superintendent and a deputy superintendent as well. One of these salaries ought to be entirely done away with. He came next to the question of the chaplain, and he found that the gentleman employed in that capacity at Broadmoor got £400 a-year, although he had only to administer to a number of criminal lunatics. Of course, it was all very well to have a chaplain; but there could be very little for him to do, and, consequently, a salary of £400 a-year was very liberal. He knew, with regard to the Belfast Lunatic Asylum, that a warm discussion took place years ago as to whether a chaplain should be allowed inside the gates of the building; and he believed he was correct in saying that up to the present time there was no chaplain connected with the Antrim Asylum. That being so, he did not see what ground there was for giving a chaplain £400 a-year. But, in addition to that, he got leave of absence, and another clergyman was allowed 18 guineas for officiating while he was away on leave. If it was necessary that he should have leave, he ought to get some supernumerary to perform for him, without charge; or he might exchange places with some other clergyman and go to the seaside, leaving his substitute to go inland from the seaside. Thus both would get something in the shape of variety, without adding to the expenses of the establishment. He certainly did not think that this sum was required for the salary of a chaplain at Broadmoor, when the Roman Catholic priests at Dundrum only received £50. On the grounds he had mentioned, he thought he was justified in moving to reduce the pay of the superintendent by the sum of £400, thus allowing him £500, which, from all he had heard, would be ample payment for what the superintendent had to do. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £400.

said, he was glad to find that it was not the chaplain's salary that his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) proposed to reduce. He was at first afraid that it was, and he had understood his hon. Friend to make the somewhat novel suggestion that the chaplain, for the sake of a holiday, should make an exchange and go to the seaside for a time, leaving the other, by way of variety, to go to a lunatic asylum. As, however, his hon. Friend had concluded his remarks without proposing to reduce the chaplain's salary, he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) would not make the remarks which he would otherwise have made. For his own part, he thought these poor creatures confined in a lunatic asylum should not be deprived of the consolation they would obtain from the ministrations of a clergymen to whom, in their faint glimmer of reason, such consolation might be of the utmost value, and, perhaps—for who could tell?—the last and only consolation there might ever be for them. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Motion for the reduction of the Vote.

said, he had referred to the chaplain, and he did think that a salary of £400 a-year was extremely liberal for ministering to a parcel of lunatics. He could not understand what a clergyman could have to say to them. He thought that £50 a-year would be a liberal payment. He had, however, proposed not to reduce the salary of the chaplain, but to reduce the salary of the superintendent to the extent of £400 a-year. At present, the superintendent got £900 a-year, and he had a deputy, who probably did more of the work, at £460 a-year. He thought the superintendent, who was there for ornamental purposes more than anything else, would be sufficiently well paid with a salary of £500 a-year. He had, therefore, pro- posed to reduce his salary to that amount.

wished to express a hope, before the Vote was agreed to, that the principle announced by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as that which was to be applied to the officials employed in the prisons—namely, that of remunerating them according to the labour they performed, would be extended to the asylums.

wished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) to the different course pursued in regard to Scotland from that which was followed in relation to the other legal Votes. In the Appropriation Account of this Vote they had a detail of the fees received by the Lord Advocate, the Lord Advocate's Clerk, the Solicitor General for Scotland, the Solicitor General's Clerk, the Crown Agent, and the Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate. Now, that detail of all the fees received by these officers, he (Sir George Balfour) had been for nine years trying to obtain; and now that it was given for Scotland, he naturally urged that the House ought to have it in regard to every legal officer connected with the Government. They now had, in the Appropriation Account, the whole detail given of these fees paid to legal officers in Scotland, and he asked that they should have, with regard to England and Ireland, the same information, so that they might be able to see how the fees were paid. He had no doubt that fees were voted in connection with all the legal appointments to the extent of many thousands, and he thought the Committee had a right to inquire from the noble Lord how they were disposed of. He did not ask that the detailed information should be furnished in the Estimate; but that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be allowed, from the vouchers and accounts before him, to put down the sums paid to different individuals for legal business, and stating for what duties, and to what persons paid. In regard to the legal work done in Scotland, paid for by fees, every item was now accounted for. He found it stated in the Estimates that the Lord Advocate received as salary £2,388, and in addition an allowance of £850, in lieu of fees abolished by the Patent Law Amendment Act of 1852. Now they found, for the first time, that he was also remunerated by fees. He held it to be derogatory to the high position of the Lord Advocate, that he should receive anything in the shape of remuneration by fees in addition to his salary. Now, instead of voting him his fixed salaries of £2,388 and £850 in lieu of Patent fees, it would be better at once to vote him a salary of £3,000 a-year, and add thereto the sum now paid on an average for extra fees, making in all £4,000. Then, again, the Solicitor General for Scotland received £955, and besides £287 in lieu of Patent fees; besides extra fees for other duties. It would be better to give him a salary of at least £1,200 a-year. The duties of the Scotch Law Officers would, without remuneration by extra fees, be sufficiently well attended to by fixed total emoluments, and sufficiently well paid by these salaries. By this consolidation they would be able to dispense with any payment in the shape of fees, to which objections had been raised from Scotland. The salary of the late Legal Secretary of the Lord Advocate, when he first accepted the office, was £300, and it had since been raised to £500. The gentleman who filled the office also held various other offices, and the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) would find that he received, in the shape of other fees and allowances, a sum of £969, making, with the salary of £500, no less than £1,469. If a salary of £600 a-year was not sufficient for the Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate, then, by all means, give him a salary of £1,000, and have his services entirely devoted to the work of the office. One part of the duties of the late Secretary to the Lord Advocate was to attend to the preparation of Bills; but, at present, it did not appear that very much was done in that way for Scotland. There was no Officer in the House representing Scotland; and, as far as he knew, no Officer in London to attend to Scotch affairs. The Irish people had two Parliamentary Officers; but not a single one had the Scotch people. Then, again, the time of the late Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate was employed, as junior to the Lord Advocate, in cases before the House of Lords and in preparing Parliamentary Bills; and no less a sum for those duties than £700 was paid to him in fees in 1878. He (Sir George Balfour) had, however, no hesitation in saying, from his recollection of the number of Bills they had relating to Scotch Business, that the several Bills actually prepared had cost a very large sum indeed. He was satisfied that if they would put up the business of preparing Bills to competition in Edinburgh, they would find that the work could be done better, and at a much cheaper rate. They had, at all events, this fact stated in the Estimates, that the Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate had been able to obtain remuneration for work entirely foreign to his real business, and that he obtained in fees, in 1878, a sum more than three times the amount of his salary when first appointed. He thought the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would agree with him that this mode of remunerating Government officers was neither right, nor satisfactory. Then, again, there was the Crown Agent. The latter was a most deserving officer in Scotland, and did his duty exceedingly well. He received a salary of £1,400 a-year, and additional fees, and although he did not grudge that amount, he considered that it was a sufficiently handsome salary to secure the whole time and attention of that officer in Edinburgh. They ought to pay a man well, and then make him do all the work well. He thought it would be wise and fair for the Government to come to some arrangement with the Crown Agent, that he should receive a salary of £1,500 a-year, and that he should devote his whole time and attention to the duties of his office. The noble Lord would find that the Lord Advocate's Clerk got £100 a-year. He (Sir George Balfour) did not think that was sufficient for the support of the Lord Advocate's Clerk; but he had no doubt that that officer made up the remuneration in some other way. There were fees paid of £74 10s., which was an addition of 75 per cent to the salary. It would be better to make the salary paid fully £200 a-year, and do away with the fees. If that salary was hot sufficient, let them increase it and retain his whole time and service. Then, again, the Advocate Depute should be paid by salary, and not by fees. He was an important officer—the eyes and ears of the Lord Advocate—and he should be fairly and properly remunerated by salary without fees. He had received a strong representation from a gentleman in Scotland, who was very well informed, condemning the system of remunerating these high legal officers by fees. The noble Lord would also see that the Procurators Fiscal were called upon to render an account of their fees; but that they had not complied with the demand. Great changes had been made in regard to the constitution of the Courts of Scotland, and he thought they ought to ascertain distinctly what fees these officers received. They were important local officers, and he held that they ought to be free from all taint of suspicion of being influenced in their duty by receiving fees. He did not say or imply that they had been guilty of any wrongdoing; but, as long as men received these fees for the performance of certain duties, there would always be in the mind of the public a suspicion that there was something wrong in connection with that kind of payment, and that the individuals themselves might be actuated by motives of interest. He, therefore, strongly urged the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury to take the whole matter into his consideration, and see if some other method of remuneration could not be devised. He knew that the noble Lord was not responsible for the present state of affairs. He, therefore, only called attention to the matter; and he thought that, as a first instalment of reform, every penny spent in the shape of fees should be distinctly shown in the Appropriation Account. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) would only be too glad to support him, when he said that every legal officer who performed duties for Her Majesty's Government should be properly remunerated, and that the Accounts should show the sums they received and the duties they performed.

said, that, in reply to the observations of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour), he hoped that he should be able to give a Return of the fees received by the English legal officers. It would not be necessary to give it in the Estimates; but it might be appended, as in the case of the Scotch Votes, to the Account. He could not absolutely promise to give this Return; but he certainly hoped to be able to give it next year. In regard to the remuneration of the Lord Advocate, his hon. and gallant Friend was so great a master of figures that he ventured to differ from him with great hesitation. His hon. and gallant Friend should have said that the Lord Advocate received £2,388 as salary, and also £850 in lieu of fees abolished by the Patent Law Amendment Act. These two sums together amounted to over £3,200, and that was now a fixed sum, instead of fees. He was afraid that, if a proposal were made to reduce the salary of the Lord Advocate from the sum of £3,238 now paid to £3,000, it would be unfair to a learned gentleman who had accepted the office on certain conditions, whatever determination might be arrived at in regard to the future.

said, he was quite aware that the Lord Advocate received a salary of £2,388 as salary, and a further sum of £850 in lieu of fees, and that the two sums together amounted to more than £3,200. But he did not think there would be any disadvantage in placing the Lord Advocate's salary in future at a fixed amount. Most of the legal officers appeared to to have fixed salaries, plus moneys they received from the Patent Office.

said, that it seemed to him the salary paid to the Lord Advocate, and which appeared in the Estimate, was a very reasonable one. So far as the Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate was concerned, he was able to inform his hon. and gallant Friend that his recommendation for the future had already been carried into effect. The Legal Secretary to the present Lord Advocate was in future to be remunerated by salary. Whenever the appointment of Queen's Remembrancer became vacant, it would be deserving of consideration whether the same course should not be followed; but the present officer had accepted the office under certain conditions, and he well deserved the remuneration he got. So far as the Procurators Fiscal were concerned, all but six of those gentlemen were paid by salary; and, as opportuni- ties occurred, the system of paying by fees would be put an end to, and payment by salary substituted.

wished to call the attention of the noble Lord to a charge under the head of D, for Sheriffs' Accounts, Procurators Fiscal, not paid by salary, £28,000; while, under head E, there was an item of £25,135, for Procurators Fiscal, who, he presumed, were paid by salary. What he wished to know was, what portion of the sum of £28,000 was for Sheriffs' Accounts, what proportion was for Procurators Fiscal not paid by salary; and, further, what proportion they received of the expenses of criminal prosecutions under the authority of the Lord Advocate, included under head C? He hoped, that in another year, the Committee would have definite information in regard to all these separate heads. What was the difference between criminal prosecutions and general prosecutions? He should like to have these three different items placed by themselves, and fully explained.

remarked, that there was a matter which appeared to have escaped the notice of the Committee. In a note at the foot of page 225 of the Estimates, there was this paragraph—

"The Secretary to the Lord Advocate receives occasional Pees for preparing Bills under Class III., Vote 20, sub-head F, and for Legal Business in the Peerage Cases chargeable against sub-head D of Vote 20, Class III. The actual amounts so received will be mentioned in a note to the Appropriation Account of this Vote for the year. He also receives a salary of £250 a-year as Counsel to the Scotch Education Department."

This last statement was correct when the Estimates were made up; but the Secretary to the former Lord Advocate was specially appointed Law Adviser to the Education Department—an office newly created for him—shortly before the late Government went out of Office. He was the then Lord Advocate's Secretary; but the present Lord Advocate's Secretary did not get that allowance, or anything else. The late Lord Advocate's Secretary received the appointment of Law Adviser to the Scotch Education Department, and the salary now went to him.

said, that in regard to the salary of the Lord Advocate, it appeared to him, in spite of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir George Balfour) had said, that the Lord Advocate was very liberally paid, and he (Mr. Biggar) should be disposed to move that the salary be reduced. He saw, by a foot-note, that, in addition to the two salaries of £2,388 and £850, he got fees for the work he really did. The foot-note said—

"The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General receive Fees from the Public Departments in addition to their Salaries, when specially employed in giving opinions or in conducting legal proceedings before the Civil Courts; their clerks also receive Fees on similar occasions."

It seemed to him that, if fees were paid, they should be enough without a salary for the work done.

apprehended that the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland, as the Legal Advisers of Scotland, received salaries, and then had fees for whatever work they performed when consulted by the Government. That was the case, he believed, with all the Law Officers in Ireland. Certainly, it was so in England, and he had no doubt that it was the same in Scotland. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms), he thought, if he would turn to page 226 of the Estimates, he would see what the Sheriffs' Account received; and if the hon. Member required more accurate information, he (Lord Frederick Cavendish) would be ready to supply it.

remarked, that, in answer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), he would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Estimates for the Irish Law Establishments, where he would find an item of £5,000 for fees to the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Law Advisers of Ireland, for directing Crown prosecutions. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland did not get a shilling in the shape of fees for Crown prosecutions.

said, he fully sympathized with the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms). He thought that if Scotland suffered as much as Ireland did from the system of government which prevailed in that country, Scotland would Be very sorry to have either the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General in that House. Much as he respected both of the eminent Legal Functionaries connected with Ireland, he would be glad to see them out of Parliament. He was of opinion that if there was more of the Scotch system in Ireland that country would be much better off. But his object in rising now was to call attention to something which he certainly thought some of the canny Members from over the Border should long ago have taken notice of. He found on page 225 of the Estimates, under details of sub-head A, that there was a dagger after "Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate," and, looking down to the foot-note to which it referred, he found this note—

"The Secretary to the Lord Advocate receives occasional Fees for preparing Bills under Class III., Vote 20, Sub-head F."

But on looking at Vote 20 he found no explanation. [Mr. ARTHUR PEEL: It is a mistake.] If it was a mistake, he would not further pursue the subject; but he hoped the mistake would be set right.

said, he was sorry that he had had occasion to call attention to the fact that 40 Members were not present. He had counted only five hon. Members in the House; and he thought that the Scotch people ought, at least, to put in an appearance when matters concerning their own country were being discussed. He found under sub-head A of that Vote, on page 229, an item which he could not understand anybody passing who knew anything about figures. On reference to the Judges' Clerks, he found that they were 11 in number. He found also that the annual increment allowed to them was £20. The sum voted for 1879–80 was £3,324, and for 1880–81 £3,634. How they could make those figures tally he did not know; because if they multiplied 20 by 11 the product was 220. If that amount were added to the sum of £3,324, the total would be £3,544. He should be much obliged to the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench if that matter were explained to them. There was £90 too much charged; and if some satisfactory explanation were not forthcoming, he should be compelled to move the reduction of the Vote by that sum.

said, that as he had not received any information with regard to the item he was unable to answer the question. The desire, however, of the hon. Member, that there should be no waste in the expenditure, was evidently worthy of approbation. As he had no information on the subject, he could not pretend to say how that discrepancy arose; but he thought it exceedingly likely that last year's Estimate was found to be a little short, and, therefore, it was necessary to adjust the matter then. He was inclined to think that on the present occasion the hon. Member saw an opportunity of taking advantage of him, and did not fail to seize it. All he could say was, that he could not furnish the explanation then; but he would do so on Report.

said, that really he had no intention whatever of taking advantage of the noble Lord. He merely wished to point out what was obviously a mistake, and, therefore, trusted that the noble Lord would withdraw the expression he had used.

said, that if he was not mistaken, he heard, during his recent observations, a remark to that effect fall from the hon. Member.

said, that he would assume the entire responsibility of what had occurred. The noble Lord had, no doubt, overheard the remark which fell from him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), and not from the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan). He had so often observed the marvellous facility and dexterity with which the noble Lord evaded the most direct points, and explained away the most glaring errors, that he had been anxious to see how, on that occasion, he would explain a most palpable error. If his hon. Friend had not raised the question, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) should have done so himself; and he had perceived that the noble Lord was still able to make head against the difficulties. As a matter of fact, he thought that it was not quite a satisfac- tory explanation, if it were the best possible under the circumstances. He believed he was right in saying that a mistake had been made in that case in all probability; and he thought, therefore, that the noble Lord might consent to the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £90.

said, he could not accept that. If the reduction were agreed to, the effect would be to dock some unfortunate clerk of his pay. He had already promised to explain the matter on Report.

said, that he wished to ask the noble Lord a question. He was sorry to have to ask it when there was no Legal Adviser upon the Treasury Bench; but that was not his fault. He wanted to know why £50 was charged for fees to officers and others at the trial of Election Petitions? He remarked that the sum charged was as great as that for England. If anybody would reflect upon the comparative number of Petitions in Scotland and England, it must be obvious that if £50 was an adequate sum for England it would be a great deal too much for Scotland. But that was not his only objection. He did not understand how the Consolidated Fund was chargeable in that manner. He wanted to know how the sum was payable at all out of the Consolidated Fund, because, according to the scheme of the Act, the whole of the expenses were to be borne by the parties, and they were made to furnish security for those payments before the Petitions were allowed to be presented.

said, he was afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not entirely correct. As far as he was aware, a certain amount was so chargeable, and when he knew the amount of the different Election Petitions he should have to present a Supplementary Vote. He imagined that the sum appearing in the Estimates was put there to provide for any casual Election Petition that might arise.

said, that that answer seemed hardly satisfactory. He should like to know under what section of the Act the expenses were payable by the public?

said, that he could answer that on Report, but not then, not being advised on the subject. He should have thought that the hon. and learned Member would have been well acquainted with 21 & 22 Vict. If he referred to the Act he would find the case dealt with.

said, he really must ask the noble Lord to withdraw what he had previously stated with regard to him.

said, that in what he had stated he meant no disrespect towards the hon. Member.

said, he wished to ask a question with regard to the Courts of Law in Scotland. It was with reference to the circumstances under which a Judge of the Court of Session had been appointed, when the late Government were about to leave Office, to a post which had been vacant for fully two years. The House and the country were under the impression that the Government did not think it necessary to fill it up. A good many questions were asked on the subject, and the lawyers of Edinburgh prompted hon. Members of that House to inquire the reasons why it had not been filled up. A certain Clerkship of the Court of Session which corresponded to the Judgeship was also vacant. On various occasions answers were given, the general purport of which was, that the Government doubted whether it was necessary to fill it up at all. In his opinion, those doubts were thoroughly well justified; the Court of Session need not be maintained at the strength to which it had been raised by that appointment, unless the Sheriffs were reduced. In fact, he believed that greater reductions might be made, and greater savings be effected. Reductions might be made as regarded the Sheriff Courts of Scotland, for the present number of Judges and Sheriffs together was, in his opinion, totally unnecessary. The late Government appeared to be of that opinion until certain events had happened; but after the General Election this view appeared to have been materially influenced by the result, and they came to the conclusion that it was proper to fill up posts which, before that result was known, they had thought right to allow to remain vacant. They had appointed a gentleman who certainly had rendered good service to the Conservative Party in Scotland to the vacant Judgeship, and another to the Sheriffship vacated by him; so that, by that means, they were enabled to kill, as it were, two birds with one stone, and reward two faithful adherents. He must say that those appointments, being made at that particular time, did certainly look very suspicious. The Conservative Party were fully represented on the Judicial Bench in Scotland; whereas, in this country, such appointments as were made for purely Party considerations were comparatively rare. He should be glad to know from Her Majesty's Government, whether, in their opinion, it would be necessary to maintain the Bench in Scotland at its present strength on the recurrence of the next vacancy?

said, the appointment referred to had been made before the present Government took Office. They had not the opportunity of considering whether the recent appointment was necessary or not; but he was quite sure they would do so before the next vacancy was filled up.

said, he wished to bring before the Committee one of the most extraordinary documents ever issued by a Public Department. It was signed "Richard Assheton Cross," and had reference to a certain legal appointment in Scotland. It ran as follows:—

"Be it known to all men by these Presents that I, Richard Assheton Cross, one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, understanding that the office of Sheriff Clerk of the Shire of Kinross is now vacant, by reason of Mr. John Wright Williamson having resigned the aforesaid office, together with the office of Commissary Clerk of the said shire, on condition that he receives during his life one half of the salary or emoluments which may be assigned to his successor in the office of Sheriff Clerk of the said shire, and being well informed of the loyalty and abilities of Mr. Robert Burns Begg, writer, have nominated, constituted, and appointed, and I hereby nominate, constitute, and appoint him, the said Mr. Robert Burns Begg, to be Sheriff Clerk of the Shire of Kinross, and the whole bounds thereof, during all the days of his life, giving and granting to him the said office with power to him to receive the casualties, fees, and; profits accruing to the said office, paying the same into Her Majesty's Exchequer, and to appoint deputies in the same office for whom he shall be answerable, and to alter and change them at his pleasure, and generally to do everything concerning the premises which any Sheriff Clerk may lawfully do. And the said office is hereby granted to be held by him, the said Mr. Robert Burns Begg, he undertaking to execute, and executing the said office of Sheriff Clerk of the said Shire of Kinross in person. And it is hereby provided, as a condition of his appointment, that the said office of Sheriff Clerk of the said shire shall be remunerated by salary, the fees, profits, and emoluments thereof being accounted for and paid into the Exchequer, and that, until statutory provision be made on the subject, he, the said Mr. Robert Burns Begg, shall accept such salary for the said office of Sheriff Clerk of the Shire of Kinross as may be assigned to him by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury. And it is further provided that the said Mr. Robert Burns Begg shall remit to the said Mr. John Wright Williamson), his predecessor in the aforesaid office, one half of such salary as may be assigned to him, the said Mr. Robert Burns Begg, by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury from year to year, during the life of the said Mr. John Wright Williamson; provided also that the said Mr. Robert Burns Begg do give attendance in the sheriff clerk's office on the ordinary days and during the ordinary hours of business, except when attending in court, which he shall be bound to do in all sittings of the court unless when his presence shall be dispensed with by the Sheriff. Provided also, that in the case of the passing of any Act of Parliament, the duties of the said office be increased, the said Mr. Robert Burns Begg shall not be entitled to claim any addition to his salary by reason thereof. Requiring hereby, &c."

The rest was formal merely, and the document was dated 14th September, 1878. The Home Office, when they signed that document, felt naturally enough that it was an extraordinary one. They accordingly sent to the Treasury, to ask if they would lend a hand and sanction the proceeding. The Treasury declined, and said they would have nothing to do with it, and they pointed out that—

"My Lords would submit that it is opposed to the general policy of the law, which presumes, with reference to an office of trust, that the holder requires the payment of the salary assigned to such office, for the purpose of upholding the dignity and performing properly the duties of it; and their Lordships, in the exercise of the power vested in them by Parliament, can only consent to appoint such an outlay to be paid to the Sheriff Clerk of Kinross as will be sufficient to obtain the services of a properly qualified person, and to cover any outlay to which he will be necessarily subjected, but not more than sufficient for those purposes; and it is obvious that these conditions fail to be fulfilled If the holder of the office is mulct of a portion of the salary intended as his proper remuneration for the benefit of another person."

They distinctly declined to be parties to that allocation of salary. The Home Office was not, however, to be put down by a single refusal, and they pointed out in another letter that—

"For several years representations had been made by the Lord Lieutenant of the county, the Sheriff of the county, and others, that the public service was suffering in consequence of the advanced age—above 80—and infirmities of Mr. Williamson the late Sheriff Clerk."

Mr. Williamson held the office for life, and was paid by fees, not by salary. Various attempts were made to get him to appoint a deputy; but these failed, and last summer the state of matters had become so serious that the Lord Advocate had to consider whether he should not present an application to the Court of Session to deprive Mr. Williamson of his office. The Court's power in the matter was by no means free from doubt. The Treasury, however, in spite of that, declined to accede to the suggestion; but on a representation which was made again in a third letter, inclosing a certificate to the following effect, re-considered the matter—

"Minute of Lord Advocate. I can only express my regret that the Treasury insist in the view they have taken up in this matter. The proposed arrangement is not only, in my opinion, a legal one, but more beneficial to the public service; whereas a continuation of the present state of matters, which seems to be the only alternative, is detrimental to the public service, and calculated to bring discredit on the Administration."

It appeared that Mr. Williamson was utterly incapable, by reason of age and infirmity, of doing any work at all, so much so that he had not for years kept any record of the fees collected by him. The Treasury then wrote as follows:—

"I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that My Lords have considered further your letter of the 24th ult., and the copy of a Minute of the Lord Advocate enclosed therewith, in reference to the proposed arrangement for paying over to Mr. Williamson part of the salary payable to Mr. Begg as Sheriff Clerk of Kinrossshire; but they regret that they are not of opinion that the reasons stated at all meet the serious objections mentioned in the former letter from this Board, to the carrying out of the arrangement for filling up the office of Sheriff Clerk of Kinross in the manner specified by the warrant which accompanied Mr. Lushington's letter of the 17th September."

Then they had a letter following, in which the consent of the Treasury was given to that course being taken; and, at the same time, they wrote to the Comptroller and Auditor General informing him of the fact, and they then had a reply from the Audit Department which concluded with the following words:—

"These observations have been suggested by the reference specially made to the Comptroller and Auditor General by their Lordships, and he has thought it right to bring them under their notice for any further remarks, as he may consider it his duty, in the public interests, to refer to the subject in his Report to Parliament."

The Comptroller and Auditor General had very properly referred to that subject in his Report, and the Committee of Public Accounts had expressed their concurrence with him. They also said, however, that they

"Desired to express their concurrence with the position taken up by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury," although "not strictly legal, and opposed to the general policy of the law, which presumes with reference to any office of trust that the holder requires the payment of his salary assigned to him for the upholding the dignity and performing properly the duties of it."

And they trusted

"That with reference to future appointments the subject would receive the careful consideration of the Secretary of State."

It appeared to him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that that was letting off the late Government very easily indeed. They did what their own Department said they were not justified in doing; and he must say that he regarded it as nothing else than a job perpetrated in favour of that Mr. Williamson, when he was unable to do his duties, and had refused to exercise the power he had of appointing a deputy. What ought to have been done in the case, he believed, was, for the Home Office to have dealt summarily with the matter, if he continued to refuse to exercise his power to appoint a deputy to perform the duties he himself was unable to carry out. Under those circumstances, he felt it his duty to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £45 paid to Mr. Williamson.

said, he rose to Order, and, having an Amendment to propose for the reduction of the Vote before the Committee by £90, he wished to know, whether he should be in Order in moving it before the Amendment of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor)?

said, there was already a Motion before the Committee which could only be withdrawn by leave. The hon. Member for Ennis had risen after he had put the Motion to the Committee.

said, that the attention of the Committee had been rightly drawn to the subject of the appointment of the Sheriff Clerk for the County of Kinross; but he thought, as the Committee had already swallowed a camel in the shape of the larger sum of £7,000, there was no necessity for straining over that very small matter. As far as he could understand, the Treasury had done everything in their power to resist the arrangement complained of; but they had been eventually compelled to give way. He hoped the Government would take warning from the present instance with regard to such appointments in the future, which could only lead to great public inconvenience.

said, as no one else appeared disposed to defend the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, he desired to make a few observations with that object. There had been nothing whatever in the portions of the Correspondence read by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to show that anything in the nature of a job had taken place. What he understood by the term job was some straining of the law of practice on the part of the Government in favour of some individuals. But with regard to the present transaction, it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department had simply carried out the necessary measures for getting rid of an old official, who, having been appointed for life, was irremovable; and he apprehended that the transaction in question was one which rather belonged to the Department than to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire. He would, therefore, like to hear what the Secretary of State for the Home Department had to say in defence of it. The transaction was one which the Treasury had resisted to the fullest extent; but, as everyone knew, these appointments were not made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department himself, but by some permanent official in the Department, and he had no doubt that the permanent official who advised the present transaction would have furnished the right hon. and learned Gentleman with materials from which the Department could be defended when the Estimates came before the Committee. He protested against a personal charge being brought against the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department in his absence, and he called upon the present holder of the Office to defend his Department with regard to that appointment.

said, the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), on reading the concluding portion of the Correspondence in relation to this appointment, had come to the same conclusion as he (Mr. Arthur Peel) had himself. The Committee of Public Accounts had, with reference to the Correspondence between the Home Office and the Treasury, expressed their concurrence in the view taken by the latter Department, and admitted that the appointment was not strictly illegal, although opposed to the general policy of the law; and, at the same time, they trusted that the subject with reference to future appointments would receive careful consideration on the part of the Secretary of State. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) having called upon him (Mr. Arthur Peel) to defend the Department, he would state most candidly, although he was not greatly concerned to defend a transaction for which the late Government were entirely responsible, that in regard to future appointments all questions of this nature should receive the careful consideration of the Secretary of State; but he was not aware that the Secretary of State had power to take away an office which had been conferred as the present office had been. He trusted that the Committee would be satisfied with that assurance, and allow the Vote to pass.

said, he regretted that his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had not been present when this question was raised, as he was sure he would have been anxious to meet any charge with regard to this appointment, had he received any information that the subject would come on for discussion. But, so far as the present Session was concerned, hon. Members had no means of knowing what Business was likely to be brought forward. He had no doubt that the Motion of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had been made with perfect bona fides, and that the Correspondence read by him had been cited with perfect fairness. It certainly had struck him that, although there had been some little technical difficulty in the matter, the Treasury had conclusively shown by their Correspondence that they had acted with a sincere desire to promote the public interest.

said, notwithstanding the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) that the Committee should not strain at a gnat after swallowing a camel, it ought to be borne in mind that if the difficulty had arisen through the appointment of an old gentleman to an office for life, the Home Department had taken care to appoint another official on the same terms, thereby perpetuating the inconveniences which the Public Service had already suffered from. If, seeing the mischief that had arisen by reason of having appointed the holder of the office for life, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had taken care to prevent any new cause of difficulty in the future, no blame could possibly have attached either to him or to the Department; but he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) could not agree, under the present circumstances, with the view of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. E. Stanhope), in saying that the Department ought not to be called upon to defend itself from the charge which had been made in connection with this appointment. There were two Departments concerned in this matter. He had noticed, Session after Session, that although one faithful public servant, the Comptroller and Auditor General, made an Annual Report, with the object of keeping the Committee of Supply of that House to the lines of strict public policy and legality, his recommendations were set at nought, and he could not but observe that the Committee were getting into a loose system of conducting the Public Business. He hoped, therefore, that, in future, the Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General would be looked upon as coming from an honest and independent public authority, and that they were, in consequence, of the greatest possible value.

said, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire had been present, he would have shown himself to be the last person to shift on to the permanent officials of the Department any responsibility which belonged to himself.

said, the Sheriff Clerks had been formerly paid by fees; but the practice had been recently altered, and they were now appointed for life at a salary.

said, that the late Government having had to deal with an old man who would not give up his office, and whose work was in arrear, it was absolutely necessary that someone else should be appointed to conduct his business. He had no doubt whatever that the late Government had made the best arrangement in their power, with the intention of benefiting the Public Service.

said, that one point in the case was that Mr. Williamson had set the Department under which he acted entirely at defiance. He would not appoint anyone to act as deputy; would not make any returns; and, altogether, he appeared to have misconducted himself. That was quite bad enough; but the Home Office having found, by experience, the very great inconvenience of having an official permanently appointed, proceeded, in order to remedy that difficulty, to appoint a successor also for life. That gentleman probably already neglected the duties that appertained to the office of Sheriff Clerk in Kinrossshire; and he was, perhaps, receiving a salary for doing nothing, and might possibly give much trouble to Home Secretaries in future years. He could not understand how the late Home Secretary could have acted so absurdly in putting his name to a document of the kind which had been read to the Committee by the hon. Member for Queen's County, thereby allowing his incompetence for the post of Home Secretary to appear in the official Papers laid upon the Table of the House. That appeared to him (Mr. Biggar) to be another example of the inability displayed by Members of his Government.

said, that he thought it due to the late Secretary of State for the Home Department to state that this was by no means the first transaction of the kind in Scotland. He knew a much more important case than the one under discussion, in which a similar arrangement had been made, and he thought it was by no means indefensible. It was to be remembered that the appointment of the Sheriff Clerks was for life, and that the Secretary of State could not have appointed anyone to the office except for life. In the present case, the course which had been pursued was entirely in the interests of the public. The old Sheriff Clerk had been blamed for not retiring; but he (Mr. Dick-Peddie) thought it was rather hard to blame him for refusing to give up that to which he had a legal claim, and for giving up which the law provided him no compensation. Though the new Sheriff Clerk was under the obligation of paying half the salary to the late incumbent during his life, he could well afford to do this, as the late Clerk was upwards of 80 years of age, and he could only enjoy half of the salary for a very few years indeed. No blame, therefore, attached to the late Secretary of State for the Home Department. The transaction might not be a desirable one in the public interest; but if Parliament wished to do away with such transactions it must alter the tenure of such offices.

said, the circumstances under which these officers were appointed required careful consideration. With respect to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he should have thought that, with his legal knowledge, he would have been well acquainted with the 21st and 22nd of Vict. If the hon. and learned Member referred to that Act he would find the case provided for.

said, he rose for the purpose of stating that the Committee must be conscious of the extreme inconvenience under which its labours were conducted by reason of the absence of the Lord Advocate at a time when the subject of Scotch law was under consideration. Had that officer been pre- sent, the discussion would have been brought to an end much sooner than it appeared likely to be. From the statement of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie), which he (Mr. Gorst) had no doubt was perfectly accurate, it was quite clear that the Secretary of State for the Home Department could not dispossess the Sheriff Clerk, who held office for life and could only be disposed of on account of misconduct. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had, it was true, alleged misconduct against him; but nothing specific appeared to be alleged, except that he was 90 years of age, a fact which the most severe tribunal would not consider a sufficient ground for his removal from office. He hoped the Lord Advocate would be present in the House of Commons as soon as possible.

said, he wished to disclaim any intention of making a personal attack on the late Secretary of State for the Home Department; but he knew perfectly well that a Secretary of State was but of secondary importance within the walls of his own Department. He was, in fact, nothing more than a temporary clerk. In the present instance, he had no doubt whatever that the late Home Secretary was entirely ignorant of the persons appointed to this office, and that he simply signed the document placed before him upon the authority of one of the permanent officials. He wished to point out that this post of Sheriff Clerk was not paid for by salary at all. In the generality of instances it was paid for by fees.

said, he had already pointed out that the latter was the case under the old system which had died away, and the clerk was now paid by salary.

said, if that were the case, neither the clerks in the Treasury nor the Home Office seemed to be aware of the fact on the 14th of December, 1879. A successor had been appointed to the office on terms which entirely altered the tenure by which the post was held; and, accordingly, the late Government had the advantage of retaining a gentleman who, for four years, had not done any work, and had refused to do any work, in spite of the repeated objections which had been made. The Treasury had, no doubt, suggested to the Comptroller and Auditor General to make the representation to the House in connection with the matter, so that the Committee might fortify the Treasury in their opposition to the Home Office.

said, he had been under the impression that the Secretaries of State were persons accountable to Parliament and liable to be called upon for explanation in connection with the details of their Department; but he now heard, for the first time, that they were merely lay figures, and that persons whom no one knew anything about actually ruled the State. Under those circumstances, he thought the Government ought to consider who were these ignotœ who were supposed to control the actions of the principal Ministers of State.

said, it was a matter of extreme regret that the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department had not been present during the discussion, as he felt certain he would have repudiated the defence which had been made on his behalf.

said, the Sheriff Clerks occupied the same position in Scotland as town clerks in any city or borough in England. They were the custodians of all public documents, and transacted a variety of public business such as administrative affairs about legal proceedings. It was impossible that business of that kind could be allowed to stand still; and, with regard to the present appointment, he believed that although the late Secretary of State for the Home Department had done something which was not technically in accordance with rule, he was satisfied that he was morally right in the action he had taken. He thought he had made a good bargain for the public in removing the difficulty that existed, and trusted that the Vote would now be allowed to pass.

asked why the Secretary of State for the Home Department was not there to explain this matter? There was not a single Cabinet Minister on the Treasury Bench.

said, he had listened with very great disfavour to the heresy he had just heard. The doctrine had been laid down that a person appointed for life to an office might do what he pleased without being deprived of his office. He (Mr. Finigan) deemed that a person appointed for life, of course, under the ordinary laws of common sense and equity, had certain rights; but he had equally corresponding duties; and as this Mr. Williamson had not been able to perform those duties he thereby lost his rights. Following up the policy of the Government, this Mr. Williamson ought to have been put upon a pension; and it was certainly a most monstrous thing to appoint another man, and to allow him to make a compromise, by which he only took a certain portion of the salary. It seemed to him that this was merely a job, and that his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) deserved the best thanks of the Committee for having brought forward so flagrant an instance of injustice.

said, the Committee would find an authoritative instance for this practice in the case of Sir Walter Scott, who, when he was appointed to a judicial office in Scotland, paid half the salary to his predecessor. It was a very common practice; and though he did not know whether it was exactly legal or not, he did place the greatest confidence in the Comptroller and Auditor General. He might observe also that even if this Resolution were carried it would not amend the matter; for it would deprive Mr. Williamson of his salary, and it would not give back to this young man the money that he had paid.

wished to say a few words in answer to the attack that had been made upon him. If he was asked who was responsible for this Budget, he should say the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He was the person who submitted those Estimates, and who ought to have been there to defend them. Therefore, he called upon the only hon. Member present representing the Home Office to get up and defend the Vote. His conduct was perfectly constitutional, and he merely asked for an explanation from the hon. Member of the Government who submitted this Vote.

said, he would not give his own opinion in regard to this matter, but would merely read a few lines of a document signed "W. Lord, Library Chambers," in which it was said that—

"Owing to the fact that Mr. Williamson, the late occupier of the office, had not for many years kept any record of the fees received by him, neither did there exist in the office books any entries giving details of the business and the returns of the foes, it seemed doubtful to him whether a gentleman who for years had neglected his duties in that way was entitled to a pension."

Something had been said of the manner in which Scotch Business was managed; but he would say one thing for the Scotch Members—that they did stick together. No matter how frightful a proposition was made by any Scotch Member, every Scotch Member would be sure to get up and vote for it. He really believed that if Mr. Williamson committed murder or perjury in his capacity as Clerk to this Sheriff, or whatever it was, that the Scotch Members would have defended him and given him a pension.

said, he did not wish to push this question to a division; therefore, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion, the more especially as he had been asked to do so by his hon. Friends.

said, he was rather jealous lest, in the discussion of this small sum of £45, attention should be drawn away from the other question as to the £3,000 a-year for an additional Judgeship. He understood, however, so far as the observations of his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had reached him, that his assurances were distinct, that before any future Judgeship was filled up the matter should be very fully considered whether it was necessary that another Judge should be appointed at all. As also the Scotch Judges were paid less than either those in England or in Ireland, if the number were diminished that would be a very good opportunity for increasing their salary.

said, he should now move the reduction of the Vote by £90. The Government had confessed that that sum was there through either some accident or some misunderstanding. There was neither rhyme nor reason for it, and the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury ought to consent to cut out that item without putting the Committee to the trouble of a division.

also hoped the Government would not force the Committee to divide, but would accept the reduction, as it was perfectly plain that the officials who drew up the Estimates had made a clerical mistake, involving an overcharge of £90. Though the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had tried to define the amount, the item could not be explained away, and he maintained it was a wrong one altogether. He knew it was not the only instance in which blunders existed in. the Estimates, and he would undertake to say that in the course of the discussion they would find half-a-dozen others.

said, he would not deny that, among so many thousand items, there might not be a mistake; but he could vouch for the excessive clearness with which the Estimates had been drawn up. He believed the explanation of this apparent overcharge was that last year too small an Estimate was taken, and that, therefore, it was necessary to increase it this year. As he had already said, the effect of striking out the item, supposing he was correct, would be to deprive a clerk of a salary to which he was entitled. He was quite sure that the Committee, without fuller knowledge of the facts, would not wish to commit that injustice.

said, there was a course which was very convenient for the noble Lord and the Committee, which might be easily taken, especially as it had been taken before. The other night, in consequence of the great number of Votes carried through quickly, £100 was omitted which was necessary; and, on the following day, all that the noble Lord had to do was to take a Supplementary Vote for £100. As a matter of principle, it was obviously perfectly improper to ask the Committee for £90, which, on the face of the Estimate, was not necessary. Let the noble Lord stick to the principles which he (Lord Randolph Churchill) was perfectly certain he would have advocated in Opposition. Omit this Vote now, and then, if it was necessary afterwards, he could bring forward a Supplementary Vote which would pass through Committee without opposition.

wished to say that he could not admit that the facts were as stated by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill). It was all but certain that this was merely an increase over last year, rendered necessary by the fact that too little was taken. If he took the advice now offered, when they came to Report he would have to ask the House to re-commit that Vote, as it would have again to pass through Committee.

said, he did not see by what right the noble Lord lectured the Committee. They were there to see that the Estimates were properly passed. At present, there appeared to be an item which was perfectly irregular, and which he could not explain. Yet, when they made respectful representations to him in regard to it, they were browbeaten in this way.

suggested that, as these Estimates had been prepared by the Predecessors of the present Government, that one of them might, perhaps, be able to explain a matter which evidently the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury could not.

said, he wished to make an appeal to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury in the interest of getting through Business. ["Oh, oh!"] That was how he and his Friends were met when they tried to expedite the Business. [Laughter.] When he rose to try and assist the Government, he was met by inarticulate noises from the Gentlemen below the Gangway on the other side of the House, who were new to that House, who were not accustomed to its procedure, and who would do far better to sit in silence, and learn what it was before they ventured to interrupt. The proposition which he had to make was one entirely in the interests of the progress of Business. In the Estimates there was clearly an error. It was not an error of the noble Lord, but of the late Government. It was ten to one that it was merely an arithmetical mistake; but it had been pointed out if the Committee of Supply was ever to mean anything, or was to be of any use whatever, the proper course of the Government, when an error was pointed out apparently merely arithmetical which they were unable to explain, was to con- sent to the reduction of the Vote, and then, if afterwards it was found that the money was necessary, the noble Lord could get the Vote re-committed. He offered that suggestion in perfect good faith; but if the noble Lord persisted in refusing to adopt that course, and forced the Committee to divide, he was quite sure it would excite angry passions, and that they would not make that rapid progress in Business which was so much to be desired.

said, there was a tone and temper about the last observations they had heard which was significant, especially as one of the hon. Members opposite had distinguished himself when the Committee was last being counted by leaving it, so that for a short time the House was deprived of one of its ornaments. The question was really whether this was a discussion worthy of the House of Commons, or more fitted for a number of boys talking in a debating society. That thought naturally occurred to his (Mr. Hopwood's) mind, when he found suggestions made that angry passions would arise; that this matter was all important; that advice was offered concerning it to the noble Lord; and that then, when he attempted to explain, he was immediately accused of "browbeating" the Committee. All that might be very amusing; but he (Mr. Hopwood) doubted whether it was conduct that raised the character of the House, or of the men who used it, in the public estimation. That, however, was their own look out. The item under consideration did not seem to him to be a mistake. These clerks were entitled to a minimum salary of £250, or a maximum salary of £350. It by no means followed that the increase on this account was exactly the same each year, and he thought this difference might very probably have arisen from some changes in the Office. The amount was one of calculation for the ensuing year.

said, a good deal of time had been wasted in discussing this item of £90; but he should be able to show, in a very few words, that the Estimate as framed was probably quite correct. In preparing these figures the Estimate of the previous year was always taken primâ facie as the basis of calculation, and on that, subject to such variations as were reasonably to be anticipated, was based the Estimate of the coming year. Now, in the Estimates for last year, the sum asked in the Estimate was based on the assumption that, compared with 1878–9, there would be a considerable reduction from resignation or death; but, instead, a much less reduction had taken place, and therefore, upon the present year, it was necessary to make some addition to the amount asked for last year. This simple explanation would have been apparent to hon. Gentlemen opposite if they had happened to have before them the Estimate for the year before.

said, no doubt, the explanation now furnished by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) coincided with that given by the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; but, at the same time, the Committee were entitled to have an authoritative explanation from the Government of the matter, although he thought his hon. Friend (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had gone too far in speaking of browbeating. It must be remembered, however, that the noble Lord made use of a most curious expression, when he said he was "all but" certain that it was so. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) would appeal, at the same time, to the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), and other hon. Members near him, and he would venture to ask them whether, if a Conservative Secretary to the Treasury had ventured to stand up and use such an expression, he and his Friends would not have actually exploded with indignation? They were constantly being told that these were the Estimates of the late Government; but, at the same time, the noble Lord had now been in Office for four months, and had had time to master the Estimates; while the Committee had nothing to do with the present Government or the late Government, and had only to consider the character of the explanations which were offered. He did ask whether the Committee ought to be called upon to accept such explanations as had been originally offered to them? The magnitude of a sum made no difference. It was the principle involved. He maintained that there ought to be satisfactory explanations of every one of those items; and, until the Government could give them, he should abide by the principle, and he hoped the Committee would do the same, of dividing against an apparently unnecessary Vote. He would never consent to vote public money, whether it was £90, £900, or £900,000, until they had a perfectly satisfactory explanation of every item that was questioned from the Government.

asked the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) to allow him to repeat what he had already said, although he must observe that during the 20 years he had been a Member of that House, and in many of which he himself had criticized the Estimates most narrowly, he had never ventured to dispute such an item as this after it had been explained. There were 11 clerks in this Office whose salaries increased £20 a-year; yet the Estimate this year was only £40 more than it was two years ago. It was quite evident that last year there was an under-Estimate, and this year that was put straight. He hoped that, with that explanation, the Committee would be satisfied, and allow the Vote to be taken.

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) would not go to a division on the Vote. It certainly seemed to him that the Government, having gone very carefully into the Estimate, the Committee ought to place confidence in them. He was not any more a supporter of the Government than his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst); still, the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had taken up the Estimates, and he (Mr. B. N. Fowler) thought that if they could not trust him on a small question of that sort there would never be an end to the Business of the House. There was a great deal of Business to be got through, and he trusted that no more time would be lost over that small question.

said, that the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. B. N. Fowler) had spoken the sentiments of the old historical Tory Party, which, on matters of public expenditure, were not the principles which he (Lord Randolph Churchill) himself should be inclined to follow. The hon. Member talked about wasting time over a paltry matter; but if the Tory Government had been more attentive to the principles involved in these paltry matters, they might still have been sitting on the Benches opposite. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) would say that the explanation he had offered was an official explanation, to which he would pledge himself as a Minister of the Crown, then, so far as he (Lord Randolph Churchill) was concerned, he would accept it. But, if it was only a suggestion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, he did not think it could be satisfactory to the Committee.

said, that when the Government made their explanations they made them on the faith of the Papers before them. He had already said that nothing could be more clear, from the Papers before them, than that the figures were merely Estimates, and that only a probable Estimate could be given.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had told the Committee that it was only a plausible, or rather a probable, excuse that he was making. Now, he (Mr. Biggar) could not see on what ground the right hon. Gentleman told them that, because, a few years ago, a certain sum was estimated, therefore the amount expended in the current year must coincide with that. There was really no reason why the amount should be £90 more than it was a few years ago, because, in point of fact, one cost no more than the other. It was clear that there was a mistake last year; and if the Committee were not to criticize the Estimates from the documents before them, he really did not see the use of criticizing the Estimates at all. It was clear that last year a certain sum was estimated for, and that £200 represented the very greatest increase that could take place, whereas they found that £90 more was to be paid down. But the right hon. Gentleman said it might be so and so; it was just possible that, last year, a mistake was made, and that, therefore, they should take it at the same amount during the present year. Now, that appeared to him (Mr. Biggar) to be the loosest possible argument on which they could base their decisions. If he might make a suggestion, he would say that when a palpable mistake appeared on the face of the Estimates, if the Government would give way at first, and offer to put the matter right, they would save an enormous amount of trouble and time to the Committee, and also to themselves. But, at the present time, they said—"We cannot explain the discrepancy; but we must have a decision in our favour, although, in point of fact, we know nothing about it." He hoped the Committee would not agree to pass the Vote without further explanation.

said, that the Committee had a great deal of work before them; and as every division took up a certain amount of time he should be glad to see divisions avoided as much as possible, if the time occupied in them could be more usefully spent. In that particular instance, he was free to confess that, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers), he was prepared, so far as he was concerned, to join in asking his hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) not to push his Amendment to a division; because, although the Estimates were wrong, and though they were misleading, still it might be that the error was not so much in the amount that was asked for in that year, as the amount which was put down and required for the previous year. It appeared to him that when a gentleman had to draw up Estimates like those, it was perfectly plain that, unless there was some explanatory matter, there was great risk of the time of the Committee being taken up in seeking explanations; and he, therefore, suggested that an explanatory foot-note should be added.

said, he was about to suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) something very like that which had fallen from the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). After the statement so frankly made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers), it would be very difficult indeed to bring that matter to a division. But would the right hon. Gentleman allow him (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) to say that the ground behind the contention on which so much time had been lost was a very substantial ground. He said that they were going to vote public money on probabilities, and haphazard guesses of what might be the probable explanations a Minister might be able to give; and he protested emphatically against the doctrine of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler), that they should trust to the Government in those matters. That was the way in which the French Chambers subserviently voted money to Napoleon III.—taking it away from Peter and giving it to Paul, to use for somebody else. They would do nothing of the kind. They might have lost some time over a matter of £90; but the principle was the same as if the money involved was £90,000.

said, he rose, first of all, to remark that when, on a previous Vote, he had called attention to the same item on a somewhat similar subject, he was told by one of the hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench that the foot-note to which he referred was a mere clerical error. He, upon that, at once gave way, and ceased to offer any further opinion. He believed that that item of £90 had also sprung from some error; but he was quite prepared to accept the explanation that the £90 had been a deficit from last year, and that it would be duly made up and accounted for next year. On that understanding, he should be very happy to withdraw his Amendment.

said, he ventured to object to the course the Government had pursued with regard to the Vote. The Committee would perceive that the total expenditure of the year was estimated at £36,000, and they would perceive in a note, a little further down, that the fees charged for work done to owners of property registered and others amounted to £44,800; so that, in place of the Government paying anything to the support of that Office, there was a surplus of upwards of £8,000. And, in connection with that, he might state that the clerks in the Office were very much underpaid. They were paid much less, and especially the junior clerks, than the clerks of any other Office in the Kingdom. It seemed to him a very extraordinary thing that when that large sum was earned by that Office the expenditure should be arranged in so niggardly a way; but it was so. The matter had been often brought before the Committee. The late Secretary of State for the Home Department was so impressed with it that he went down to Edinburgh himself, went through the different departments, and satisfied himself that great changes were required, and that the salaries ought to be increased. He obtained an Act of Parliament, 12 months ago, for that purpose, and his (Mr. D. M'Laren's) complaint was that nothing had been done up to that day. Those men were, in a moral sense, robbed of their earnings. And there was an Act of Parliament in existence which stated that, whenever the surplus fees of the Office should come to more money than was spent in the Establishment, the amounts of the fees should be reduced, so that the income should never be in excess of the expenditure. Well, in the face of that Act of Parliament, the Treasury had pocketed the surplus, at the same time refusing decent salaries to the clerks. Another grievance was, that the principal of that Office formerly had the appointment of the clerks in his own hands, and he was responsible for them. Now, the Act passed in the previous year relieved him of that responsibility, and placed the appointment of the clerks in the hands of the Treasury, He complained that, while the Treasury had thus got the power into their own hands, under certain conditions, of increasing the salaries and granting retiring allowances, they had not done anything whatever to carry that Act into effect. There was another point. It would be seen from a note that the Non-Effective Charge and Superannuation Estimate was £6,321. If that were a legal deduction from the surplus of £8,000, the surplus would be reduced to about £2,000. But the same Act of Parliament which provided for giving compensation to the parties referred, to provided that the compensation should be payable from funds furnished by Parliament. It was quite clear that the Treasury were acting, if not illegally, at least most unhandsomely, to the officers of the Establishment. He believed that everything in the Estimate was repaid by the owners of houses and lands in Scotland, and that the Government were making a profit out of it.

said, he did not think the Office made quite as much profit as was imagined by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. D. M'Laren.) There was not only a Non-Effective Charge of £6,321 a-year, but there was also the cost of stationery, repairs to buildings, and possibly, also, of new buildings which might have to be erected; and when all that was added to the Effective Charges, he thought it would be very difficult to say that the Department was more than self-supporting. His hon. Friend had stated that, by the Act of last year, no benefit was received by the clerks of the Register House Office; but although their salaries were not directly increased, they became thenceforth entitled to the benefit of the Superannuation Act. Therefore, the whole status of the Office was very much altered by the Act of last year. Besides that, a Departmental Committee had now been appointed to consider what, if any, changes should be instituted in regard to the salaries, and he hoped that next year the result of their inquiry would be made known.

said, he objected altogether to hypothetical Estimates for new buildings which might never be erected. As, however, a Departmental Committee had been appointed to inquire into the subject, he should not take further objection to the Vote.

said, that he had before remarked that these Estimates had been prepared with great carelessness, and he undertook to show a number of instances. On that very Vote there was an instance. On page 239 the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would see an item for the Steward and Superintendent of Prison Manufactures in Scotland, minimum salary £250; annual increase, £10, maximum, £350; present salary, £250; salary, last year, £225. Well, then, a little further down, he saw first-class Clerk; minimum salary, £140; annual increment, £5; with a maximum of £190; although he appeared to have had £165 last year, as the minimum; and £5 brought him not up to £170, but down to £155. These, however, were minor matters, which the noble Lord would probably think unworthy of the attention of the Treasury or of himself. He would, therefore, point out in regard to that Vote for Prisons in Scotland that the same objections as those urged against the Vote for Prisons in England were equally good in the case of Scotland. From the Return moved for by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), it appeared that whereas in the Scotch Prisons there were 1,800 Presbyterian prisoners, the salaries of the Presbyterian chaplains amounted to £2,240, which was more than £1 5s. per head per prisoner. The prisoners not being Presbyterians numbered 285, and the salaries of the prison clergymen not being Presbyterians amounted to £253, so that they received nearly 18s. per head per prisoner. But there were 1,004 Catholic [prisoners in the Scotch prisons, and the gross salary paid to all the Catholic chaplains amounted to £70 a-year; so that they appeared to receive the liberal allowance of 1s. 4½d. per head per prisoner, against 18s. per head for prisoners other than Presbyterian, and £1 5s. per head for Presbyterian prisoners. He hoped to hear from some Member of the Government that that matter would be looked into when the question in connection with the English prisoners was taken up.

said, he thought the criticism of the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) with regard to the Steward and Superintendent of Prison Manufactures in Scotland arose from the fact that there had been a change made in that office since last year. So far as he could ascertain, the offices of Steward and Chief Clerk were combined, and the officer would receive a salary of £220 a-year. Since that office had become vacant, a Steward and Superintendent had been appointed at £250 a-year, and a first-class Clerk had been appointed at a lower salary than that of his predecessor. With regard to the question as to the chaplains, he could only repeat the assurance already given with respect to the English Vote—that the subject should have the most careful consideration of the Home Office, and when, next year, the Estimates were presented, he hoped that that objection would be removed.

said, he thanked the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury for the assurance he had just given, because he might take it for granted that nothing but the most strenuous objections would be raised by the Irish in that House against the scandalous discrepancy pointed out by his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). As to the conjectural explanation given of the other point which had been alluded to, it might be the real explanation; but, as a matter of fact, these Estimates beat out the American Fifteen-cube Puzzle. He was now beginning to sympathize with the noble Lord, who, having to explain conjectural Estimates, received not the slightest countenance or assistance from the right hon. Gentlemen who had prepared them.

said, he would move to reduce the Vote by £7,000. That was a Vote, in reality, for the Meteorological Council. The Meteorological Council was a body of gentlemen nominated at the request of the Government by the Royal Society, and in the grant before the Committee at that moment there was included a sum of £1,000 in payment of the services of the Council. Now, the Meteorological Department received altogether a sum of about £14,500 of public money; and the data collected by that Department were, no doubt, extremely useful so far as the public were enabled or permitted to see them. But after voting public money to so considerable an extent for the collection of those data, they were not allowed to see them when they could be of most use, except on payment to the Meteorological Department of a certain sum of money. The information, no doubt, was very useful; and it might be said, as he had no doubt the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would say, that he had been able to obtain from the newspapers from £10 to £15 per annum each for publishing it. The Returns of the Bank of England were very useful returns, and if the Bank of England would only give them to the newspapers on payment of £10 or £15 a-year, the newspapers would be glad to give the Bank of England that subvention. No doubt, the Returns of the Registrar General of the births, deaths, and marriages, and the death rate in the country were very useful. The public money was spent in the collection of those statistics; but the value to the public consisted in the diffusion of that information as widely as possible. Now, it was only in the last few years that the weather forecasts had really began to excite attention throughout the country, or to command any degree of confidence whatever. It was not until America and the private enterprize of one gentleman or one institution in New York had outstripped the rest of the world that our Meteorological Institution felt the necessity of putting itself abreast of the requirements of the age. Certain of the forecasts of the Meteorological Department were divulged at an hour of the day when they were comparatively useless to the public; and it was reserved for the private enterprize of The Times newspaper by offering, in addition to the £14,500 of public money, a separate payment of £500 or £1,000, to procure that these figures should be given to the public at an hour of the day when they would be of real value to the country. Before he went further in his protest against this reproach of a Government institution, for that was what it was, thus allowing itself to be subventioned by the enterprize of a spirited private newspaper, let him call attention to the grave necessity for diffusing that information as widely as possible. Those weather forecasts professed to give information for the guidance of seamen, owners of vessels, captains, and others putting to sea from their ports. He was informed by some hon. Members of that House that, within recent years, the agricultural interest had come to watch those forecasts very closely, especially during the approach of harvest time, so that all the value the public would get for its £14,500 would be nothing at all, if the information was to be locked up in the desks and bureaux at the office. He protested against the attempt, for the sake of £500 or so, to make that information private property, and to keep it locked up in a desk, unless the newspaper would consent to pay £20 or £25 per year for publishing it. What right had the Department to traffic in information? By what right did this Council say to the papers of the country—"You must give us £25 a-piece, or no citizen shall see in your paper this information?" If the money granted to the Department was too little, then let them increase it; but he did maintain that it was wrong for the Council to receive money in that way. He would rather that the Committee should be asked for another £500, than that that pernicious and vicious practice of selling information in that way should be pursued. He might be told that it was only £20 a-year; but he protested even against 20s. being received in that way. Besides, it was a wrong principle to lay down. Many newspapers would give 100 guineas for prior information from the various Government Departments; and yet he should like to know what would be said if, because The Times would give 1,000 guineas for preferential publication of Foreign Office despatches, it were proposed to sell public information to them in that way? The Meteorological Department had not wakened up yet, and it was by no means what it should be. If it had not been for The New York Herald forecasts, in fact, they would be half-a-century behind the times. He knew, from his own inquiries, that these forecasts were keenly watched and looked for at the small ports as well as the larger ones; and, from letters which he had himself received, he was aware that the coasting trade looked out for those forecasts with the keenest interest. He did appeal to the Government so to manage this information that it would be at the disposal of the public everywhere. Of course, he would apply to the Vote this year the same forbearance which had been applied to all other Votes; because, at the present, the Government were not responsible for these Estimates; but he certainly should hold them responsible next February for whatever they did, and he should hope that the noble Lord would be able materially to improve these Estimates. He would move that the Vote be reduced by £7,000.

It has been held, on previous occasions, that such a proposition is equivalent to substantially negativing the Vote, because it only leaves a very small sum to be put.

said, he should raise his point sufficiently by moving the reduction by £1,000.

said, he substantially agreed with what had been said by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), that the more information that could be obtained the better; but he should like to make one or two observations upon what had been said. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that the sole object of the Meteorological Department was to obtain these weather forecasts. Admiral Fitzroy, of the Board of Trade, first initiated this system; but his forecasts were found not always to be correct, and for some time no more were made. At the same time, it was considered of so much importance that the infant science of Meteorology should be developed, that a grant of £10,000 a-year was given to a Committee nominated, by the Royal Society, to develop, as far as possible, that science. Of that sum, even at the present moment, a comparatively small proportion was expended in the preparation of these forecasts. He was very glad to hear that they were considered to be of so much importance; but they were still very experimental, and, therefore, any tribute like that of the hon. and learned Gentleman to their value was the more satisfactory. His criticism, however, was mistaken in one small point. He said these forecasts were greatly valued at the seaports; but what were called storm warnings were invariably telegraphed, at the present time, to all our ports free of charge; and it was only the daily forecasts for which any charge was made. That arose in this way. During office hours two reports were made, free of charge, daily, to anyone who wished to receive them. Owing to the enterprize of The Times, a short time ago, additional expense was incurred, so that the telegraphs were kept open to a later hour, and clerks retained at the office, preparing later forecasts. The whole cost of that was defrayed by The Times. Shortly afterwards, two other newspapers wished to join in publishing them, and since that time the charge had been defrayed by these three newspapers. For his part, he did not think it was desirable that information of this sort should be confined to even the most public-spirited journals; and, therefore, he had, to some extent, made arrangements to meet the views of his hon. and learned Friend. He had not, however, gone further this year, because the Committee had set its face against Supplementary Estimates; and partly, also, because he wished to test the value put upon these forecasts by the newspapers and the public. He thought, instead of taking a large sum from certain newspapers, they should allow any newspaper, at a moderate sum, to obtain these forecasts. The subject, however, should be considered next year, when the Estimates were framed, with the definite view of ascertaining whether or not the forecasts were of sufficient value to make it worth while spending more money upon them.

said, he could not complain of the course adopted by the noble Lord; but, at the same time, this expenditure was something very useful to the country; and, therefore, he thought the noble Lord need not be afraid of coming down to the House and asking for a Supplementary Estimate.