siastical jurisdiction. I was hoping, | power to issue warrants directed to the Sir, until you had made your statement collectors of county cess in Ireland, from the Chair that we should have desiring them to levy the estimated some explanation with regard to the Bill charges and expenses of any additional dealing with these ecclesiastical matters, constabulary force appointed for any but of course if you say otherwise I county or district thereof, and it also would not proceed with my Motion. I gives him power, under the second part took the trouble to go into these Acts. of the clause, to appoint special collecThey are extremely long, and appa- tors for that purpose. Now, Sir, this rently throw a considerable amount of touches one of the most acute grievances power into the hands of the Ecclesias- in Ireland. [Colonel NOLAN: Hear, tical Authorities, and that, Sir, I main- hear!] There is not the least doubt tain-notably, at such a time as the that the object of successive Governpresent, in an Act extending to ments in imposing additional constabu lary on various counties in Ireland, sometimes upon no pretext at all, and generally, if not always, upon the flimsiest possible pretext, is a crying scandal and a crying injustice to the people of Ireland. I have, myself, per

Wales

THE CHAIRMAN: I would call the attention of the hon. Member to the remarks I made a while ago.

DR. TANNER: I will explain my meaning, Sir. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Mem-sonal knowledge of this fact that prober does not propose to move anything? DR. TANNER: I will move the omission of this Bill from the clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, "that item No. 6 be omitted from the Schedule."-(Dr. Tanner.)

Question proposed, "That the item proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

MR. SEXTON: I think, Sir, it would be well for the hon. Member to remember what you said a little time ago as to the desirability of Members informing themselves of the meaning of the various enactments contained in this Bill before moving Amendments. I think my hon. Friend will do well not to press this

Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CLANCY: I wish to draw attention to the Act dealing with the levying of county cess. I have taken your advice, Sir. I have inquired as to the objects of the Bill before rising to speak upon it. I find in this apparently ancient measure which has been introduced year after year, that there is a provision which has led to considerable discussion and irritation in Ireland, and in the second place has led to innumerable questions being asked in this House time after time and year after year, and has also caused debates to arise in consequence of the unsatisfactory answers which have been given to these questions. The third clause, which I desire to omit from the Bill, gives the Lord Lieutenant

tests have been made even by Grand Jurors-and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Galway (Colonel Grand Jurors, themselves, men who are Nolan) will bear me out in this. The amongst the most loyal persons who live in these districts, and who pay the same local rates, know what it is to be fined for nothing at all, and have protested in the strongest manner possible against charges for additional constabulary

in these various districts and counties.

Of course, if the Grand Jurors in Ire-
land have taken that course, it may be
readily assumed that the ordinary body
of cess payers have a still stronger ob-
jection to this insane process of fining
Time
peaceable districts in Ireland.
after time has this matter been brought
up in this House. Questions have been
asked as to why additional bodies of
constabulary have been imposed on the
districts. It has been pointed out again
and again that the most peaceable coun-
ties have been saddled--

THE CHAIRMAN: I have before me the Statute as it at present exists, and I must observe that it appears to me that the hon. Member has misapprehended the purpose of Clause 3. The clause he is referring to was in a previous Act, and is not the particular Clause 3 in this Bill.

MR. CLANCY: Is not the clause to which I am referring in this Act at all, Sir?

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: It is not in the Bill, nor has it been in the Bill for some time.

consistent with public policy. Why do | rest of poor persons who are compelled the Treasury decline to repay expenses to appear as witnesses, and to lose their in dismissed cases? They may say that day's work, is for the Attorney General there is no statutory obligation upon the or the Public Prosecutor to take steps Treasury to do so. That is quite true; to compel the Treasurers of Counties and but equally there is no statutory obli- Boroughs, on whom the statutory obligagation upon the Treasury to repay the tion lies, to pay these expenses. Of expenses of prosecutions at all. It is course, it is absurd to say that the witsimply this-that since 1846 it has been ness has his remedy at law against the considered a sound and just principle County Treasurer. In the case I cited that the expenses of prosecutions should just now the witness was a poor omnibus be repaid to the counties and boroughs conductor who was not in regular emby the Treasury. Now, why should an ployment, and who had lost a day's exception be made in the case where the work. I say it is the duty of the Attorperson charged is not committed for ney General, as representing the administrial? Perhaps it may be said that tration of justice in this House, either to when a charge is dismissed it ought take care that the Treasury shall repay never to have been brought; but, besides these expenses when paid by the County the fact that an inference of that kind is Treasurer, or to take steps to see that hardly well founded, I may point out the County Treasurer shall discharge the that the Treasury has ample security statutory obligation which is laid upon that expenses would not be paid in un- him. For my own part, as I have said, suitable cases from the fact that not a farthing can be paid unless the magistrate certifies that it is a suitable case. Now, my object is, if possible, to get from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, who I regret to see is not in his place at this moment, a promise that in future the expenses in dismissed cases will be repaid by the Treasury exactly as they are repaid in other cases. There is really no obstacle which would prevent the Treasury from taking that course. I was told by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury the other day that expenses were allowed, in accordance with a Treasury Minute issued in February, I think, 1875. Well, that is perfectly true. I have looked into that; but by a mere stroke of the pen, as one may say, it would be quite competent for the Treasury to issue a new Minute--if, indeed, that is necessary -to provide that the same regulations which are now in force in regard to the payment of expenses in cases where a person charged is sent for trial shall also apply in cases where the charge is dismissed. But I do not think it really matters, as one would say, a brass farthing whether these expenses are paid out of the taxes or out of the rates. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury told us the other day that the cases are extremely rare, and that, therefore, the amount concerned is a very small one; but if the Treasury refuses to repay these expenses, then the only alternative which remains, in the inte

I do not think it matters much which course he adopts; but what I would urge is that as this is a pressing matter, constituting a great hardship in a few individual cases, something should be done. These County and Borough Treasurers should be made aware that if they do not fulfil their statutory obligations they will be made to do so, and that they must not refuse to honour the certificates of the magistrates. I think the right course would be for the Treasury to issue a Circular calling the attention of the County Treasurers to the duty imposed upon them. If that were done, practically the mischief would be overcome. I beg, Sir, to move formally the omission of this Statute.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, lines 18 and 19, to omit from the Schedule the Act 29 & 30 Viot. c. 52.—(Mr. Pickersgill.)

Question proposed, "That the Act proposed to be omitted stand part of the Schedule."

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I quite agree that the hon. Member has pointed out a grievance that exists; but he will forgive me if I say that, though I appreciate his motives, if he did succeed in cutting out this Act from the Schedule he would prevent the unfortunate witnesses from getting any expenses under any circumstances. It is well that I should give a little explanation. The hon. Member is quite right in what he

nate witness would get no recompense at all. The matter has already received attention from the point of view of the hon. Member; and, so far as I can, I will endeavour to see that the provisions of the Act are carried out.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardine): This is a very old question. I remember it being discussed 10 years ago, when the hon. Gentleman the present Under Secretary of State for India (Sir John Gorst) took up the question very much as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) has raised it. But I would remind the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) that the Treasury found it necessary to reduce the expenditure under this head, which, at the time of Sir Robert Peel's Administration, had mounted up to £250,000. Now, I find that the amount on account of repayment of expenses of witnesses is £135,000; but, unless some judgment is exercised in the system of repayments, we shall again have the sum mounting up to £250,000, which the Treasury will have to pay.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: But this should not affect the witnesses.

says of the Act; but in the Act the Treasury is not mentioned at all. They have nothing to do with legislation. The drafts or orders for the payment of witnesses ought to be honoured by the County Treasurer or Clerk of the Peace. But it appears that some years ago, long before this Act 29 & 30 Vict. was passed, a bargain was made between the Treasury and the counties that there should be a contribution from the former towards the expenses of witnesses. But the parties have not always agreed. The counties think they do not get enough in some cases. But the contest does not rest only on this question of witnesses giving evidence where there is no conviction or committal; and the hon. Member must not think it is any question between the county and a witness involving the particular matter to which he has called attention. I do not say the County Treasurer is justified; but he has thought fit to make the non-payment by the Treasury a pretext or excuse for the non-payment of witnesses. I have already expressed my opinion in the House that witnesses are entitled to their expenses when they get their certificate, and that there ought not to be a fight over the body of the witness GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: between the Treasury and the county. All I want to point out is that the ExBut the only way in which this can be chequer will be landed in enormous dealt with is, as I suggested, by a letter expenditure for the payment of witto the Clerks of the Peace for the nesses if this is allowed to proceed county, pointing out their duty to pay, unchecked-if counties and boroughs and that they must then fight out their know they can fall back upon the Treabattle with the Treasury for the repay-sury; but I deny that counties and ment to which they think they are entitled; but they must not try to gain their own end by reducing payments to which witnesses are entitled. I sympathize very much with the hon. Member's desire to remove the grievances of witnesses; and I undertook to bring the matter before the Treasury. This I have done; and I also undertake to bring the subject to the notice of Clerks of the Peace, and I hope that the result of these representations will be that when a certificate is given to a witness the County Treasurer will see that he has no right to refuse payment, even though he may be unable to get repayment from the Treasury. The dispute be tween the county and the Treasury must be decided by another tribunal. But the result of the hon. Member carrying his Amendment, and omitting reference to this Act, would be that the unfortu

boroughs have the claim for repayment. The assistance of the Treasury is in the nature of a subsidy, which now amounts to £135,000. But this is one of those questions that should be looked into and settled at the beginning of the year, and there is no advantage in continuing the discussion now.

MR. CONYBEARE: I should just like to say one word, not by way of opposition, or to throw any difficulty in the way of the Committee; but I believe there is a remedy for witnesses which, if mentioned, might, perhaps, save them from the unpleasant experience of the omnibus conductor to whom reference has been made, and that is the remedy which, unless I am very much mistaken, a witness has of refusing to give evidence.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER : No; not in criminal cases.