some explanation when the Vote was before the Committee. He saw in connection with the Court of Bankruptcy an item called "An excess of £205 damages caused by loss in the matter of the case of A. M. Richardson," and he wished to know why the officers should be allowed to safeguard themselves in the case of serious mistakes of this kind at the public expense? He (Mr. Kenny) should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury could explain how this item of £205 had come to be included in this Supplementary Estimate.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) said, he should be far from saying that the Bankruptcy Court of Dublin was not a valuable one. His opinion was that the Bankruptcy Law was very well administered in Ireland, and that its administration would contrast very favourably with that of the English Bankruptcy Law. But, at the same time, there had been great demands from Belfast, Cork, and Limerick, for local Bankruptcy Courts, and it had been considered that it would be an advantage to start local Courts in order to bring the transaction of Bankruptcy business home to the doors of the suitors. This subject could be discussed when the Local Bankruptcy Bill-in the passing of which the assistance of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would no doubt be given to the promoterswas before the House.

MR. BIGGAR wished to know how many cases were tried daily in the Dublin Bankruptcy Court? Was it not a fact that the business of the Court did not average more than two or three cases a-week, and was it not a fact that the Court was idle half its time?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) said, there was a Return before the House from which the hon. Gentleman would see the number of bankruptcy cases which had occurred in Dublin, Belfast, and Limerick. The Return was laid on the Table on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Findlater).

MR. SEXTON said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland appeared to be very shy of approaching the case of A. M. Richard

where was he, and what were these damages?

MR. HIBBERT pointed out that similar sums had been paid in previous years. In the matter of Mr. Richardson, although he knew nothing about that particular case, the sum was put down in the Estimates with the object of bringing it under the notice of the House. Previously, these sums had been paid without any notice of them being laid before the House.

MR. WARTON understood that the official assignees had a claim to be recouped for their costs and their expenses; but it appeared to him that this was not a case of costs or expenses, but one of damages. It was possible that these official assignees might have exceeded their duty and have been guilty of some negligence, and that somebody had been sharp enough to bring an action against them, and had secured damages. He wanted to know if this was a case in which persons had obtained damages through the incapacity or negligence of the official assignees? He did not know if it was so; but it might happen that the official assignees had done wrong in something.

MR. HIBBERT said, the official assignees might have exceeded their duty, and in that case the Judge of the Bankruptcy Court would give damages in respect of their having done so. did not know if that was so, but that might possibly be the explanation.

He

MR. KENNY asked whether the Solicitor General for Ireland could not give some information upon the subject? The Act of 1874 was passed in order to prevent possible frauds of this kind in Ireland.

MR. HIBBERT contended that it was for the protection of the public that the matter was brought before Parliament.

MR. SMALL said, he understood the official assignees were not paid by salaries, but by fees; and he should like to be informed how much these gentlemen received last year?

MR. HIBBERT said, he could not possibly have a knowledge of all these points. He knew very little of the details of the question as far as Ireland was concerned, and did not know what those gentleman received.

MR. SMALL asked what Mr. Richardson received last year?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) stated that no sufficiently exhaustive Return had been issued to show what these sums were, and it was impossible for him to carry all these small items in his mind. MR. KENNY complained that the Committee was asked to vote this sum of money, but the two hon. Gentlemen who were responsible for it were unable to give them any satisfactory explanation as to what it was for.

MR. HIBBERT said, he would be glad to make inquiries and furnish the hon. Member with the information.

MR. BIGGAR believed that if the Committee had the true explanation of this Vote they would find that there was something which would enable them to form a definite opinion as to whether this money ought to be granted or not. Vote agreed to.

(5.) £2,050, Prisons, Ireland.

MR. DEASY said, he desired to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland one or two questions in regard to this Vote. It would be within the recollection of the hon. and learned Gentleman that he had been good enough last year to bring in a Bill to assimilate the Law of Ireland to that of England, upon its having been discovered that the two Acts of 1877 were not exactly similar, although Parliament at the time had been led to believe they were. The Irish counties went on paying about £15,000 a-year for the conveyance of prisoners since the passing of the present Prisons Act. This Act vested the control of prisons in the hands of the Government. Up to its passing the cost of transferring prisoners, tried and untried, was borne by the counties where those prisoners were arrested; and it was not discovered until three years after that in England the counties were not liable for this cost, and that it should be paid out of moneys voted by Parliament. A gentleman in the county of Surrey protested against the charge as illegal, and brought the case before the Court of Queen's Bench. On appeal, the matter was brought before the House of Lords, and it was then decided that the Government was responsible for this money themselves, and that the amount was illegally levied in England. Accordingly, the Prime Minister brought in a Bill to

refund to the English counties all the money they had thus illegally paid up to the year 1882, amounting to £100,000. But when the Irish Members made an application to have a similar course pursued in regard to Ireland, it was discovered that there was something dissimiliar in the Irish Act to the wording of the English Act, and that the Irish counties were legally liable to pay these enormous sums. In 1882, however, the Cork Grand Jury refused to pay the charge, and the case was laid before the Judge of Assize, Mr. Justice Barry, who was on the Bench at the time. He did not give his decision outright, but had the matter argued before the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin. After hearing the arguments, the Court of Queen's Bench decided that all the charge, with the exception of a very small portion, was a legal charge on the county. This small sum, which was not so chargeable, was a matter of only £200 a-year, and although the Grand Juries ought to have had that small sum returned to them, they were unable to getit. If there were any national representation on the Irish Grand Juries, no doubt the matter would have been pressed; but the Grand Juries in Ireland were almost entirely composed of landlords, who had a very small interest in these subjects, because they paid little rates themselves, and therefore they did not trouble themselves much about the county cess.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) said, the hon. Member had himself explained the reason for the difference which existed between the case of the Irish counties and the English counties. The difference was an obvious one. The charge which had been made was an illegal one in England, and, therefore, the Government were equitably bound to refund the amount which had been illegally collected; but under the Irish Act, the charges were always legally made, and would have been so until now if a new Act had not been passed to alter the law. An amending Aot having been passed, however, the Irish counties were put on exactly the same footing as the English counties.

MR. SEXTON remarked, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had talked about equity; but it appeared to him that from the point of view of equity the two cases were precisely the same.

It was originally intended that the two Acts should operate precisely in the same way, and it appeared that when the Act was altered in England equity compelled them to refund the amount illegally charged to the English counties. In the case of the Irish counties the equity was precisely the same; but, probably through the action of some cunning lawyer, a few words had been incorporated into the Irish Act, and these were used to cheat the Irish counties out of the same rights which were alllowed to the English counties. They did not desire to have a prolonged debate on this question, and, for his part, he would be very glad to withdraw the claim they had made if any lawyer could tell the Committee what was the difference between the equity of the two cases. He thought that the argument which had been used by the Solicitor General for Ireland was not one which the hon. and learned Gentleman should couple with the name of equity.

MR. P. J. POWER desired to draw attention to the circumstances attending the conveyance of prisoners in Ireland under the Prevention of Crime Act.

THE CHAIRMAN pointed out that the hon. Gentleman would be out of Order in discussing the Prevention of Crime Act on this Vote.

MR. SEXTON, on the point of Order, wished to ask the Chairman whether the remands of prisoners and their conveyance to and from the prison and the Court under the Prevention of Crime Act would not come under this Vote? There were prisoners in Ireland arrested under the Prevention of Crime Act who were remanded time after time for upwards of a year, and he submitted that the conveyance of these prisoners from one place to another could be discussed on this Vote.

THE CHAIRMAN said, the conveyance of such prisoners would be in Order; but it would not be in Order to enter into a discussion upon the policy of the Prevention of Crime Act.

MR. P. J. POWER said, he was merely attempting to point out the circumstances connected with the conveyance of prisoners under the Prevention of Crime Act, which certainly came under this Vote. They had had prisoners conveyed from Galway and other places to Dublin for investigation and trial under the Prevention of Crime Aot,

and on this ground alone it was their duty to prevent, as far as they could, this Vote passing. They regarded it as one of the greatest scandals in Ireland that these prisoners should be conveyed about from place to place.

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN said, he did not think that cases of this sort, under the Prevention of Crime Act, did come under the Vote at present before the Committee. As the hon. Member would see from the particulars, this Vote was for the expenses incurred in the conveyance of prisoners from the period when the order for their committal to prison was made.

MR. SEXTON wished to ask a question in regard to the prisoners who had been conveyed backwards and forwards between Sligo and Dublin. One of these prisoners was being conveyed from one place to another, and the constable who was in charge of him put a pair of handcuffs on him which were very much too small for his wrists. In the process of handcuffing the man, therefore, the constable cut the wrists of the man, who complained of what had taken place, and was seen by the prison doctor at Sligo. The only reply the unfortunate man received from the doctor, however, was— -"Oh, Paddy, they did not know that your wrists were so large." What he wished to know was, whether this brutal conduct was to continue; whether the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiries into the case, and ascertain if the expression he had quoted was made use of; if he discovered that the ciroumstances were as he (Mr. Sexton) had stated, whether he would reprove the persons who were responsible for such conduct?

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN said, he was not aware of the circumstances of the case to which the hon. Member had referred; but if the hon. Member would send him the facts, he would inquire into the matter.

MR. SEXTON said, he would send the right hon. Gentleman a letter in the man's own handwriting.

MR. WARTON desired to know if there had been, in respect of this matter, a recent change in the law which had given rise to this supplementary amount becoming necessary? If not, it showed a gross error in the original Estimate.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER) remarked,

last Session which made this Supplementary Estimate necessary. Vote agreed to.

MR. MUNDELLA said, he would prefer not to make any statement on that matter at present. The Report of the Commission had nothing to do with this Vote. The grant was one in which Ireland shared in precisely the same degree as England and Scotland.

MR. SEXTON said, it was evident that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen the document referred to, as it referred especially to grants.

since, an ingenious calculation, which turned the amount of £70,000 into halfpence, and showed that it represented a half-penny from every man, woman, other words, it represented a perpetual annuity of £2,000 a-year on the finances of the country, or £5 or £6 a-day for ever, and that simply for the purchase of one work of Art, without taking into account other expenses connected with it. It was also interesting to compare the cost of these pictures with some of the amounts derived from taxation at He found that it

the present time.

the Chancellor of the Exchequer obcame very nearly to the amount which tained from Auctioneers' Licences; that it exceeded the sum he received from the Gun Tax, as well as that received from Armorial Bearings; it was more than two-thirds of the sum produced by the Tax for Male Servants, and was equal to that of the interest paid on the Two and a-Half per Cent Annuities before the recent transaction of the right hon. Gentleman. Finally, it was nearly half of the sum squeezed out of the Government for the repairs of the highways. These comparisons were, he thought, sufficient to show to the Committee that

Vote agreed to.

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £83,520, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery."

MR. CUBITT said, the amount of this grant was so exceptional that he thought it unnecessary to make any excuse for addressing the Committee on the subject. Whatever opinion there might be on the question involved, he thought that it was a Vote which ought not to be passed over silently. The Government proposed to give £87,500 for two pictures that was to say, dividing the amount, £70,000 for one picture, and £17,500 for the other. This was an enormous price to pay for two pictures; and the sum was so large that it required some little consideration to realize its

The Solicitor General for Ireland

it was a time of rumours of war. They it was a time of heavy war expenses, and had been told, even that evening, of the great calls made on account of the Navy, not only for the purpose of war, but for the purpose of the defence of the country. They knew that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was preparing his Budget, and that the expenditure was so great that people must shudder when they thought of the consequences. Putting aside the exceptional state of things at the present moment, he asked whether it was wise for a Government to pay extreme prices for works of Art? The National Gallery had been formed by bequests and donations partly, and partly by purchases. But if Her Majesty's Government paid extreme prices for works of Art, would they not thereby discourage donations,