HC Deb 06 March 1861 vol 161 cc1480-9

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. MONCKTON MILNES,

in moving the second reading of this Bill said, it would be advisable that he should state to the House the present position of officers of prisons with regard to pensions and su-perannuations. By the 5 & 6 Vict., c. 30, power was given, in case governors, chaplains, or other officers of gaols became unable from confirmed sickness, age, or infirmity to discharge their duties, to grant them such superannuation allowances as the ease might seem to require, according to the scale prescribed, by the 4 & 5 Wm. IV., c. 24. Since the date of that measure the question of superannuation had been dealt with by an Act establishing with regard to the holders of all civil appointments a scale which, though not in any degree excessive in its allowances, fulfilled every requirement of public justice. The object of the present Bill was to assimilate the superannuations of the prison officers to that provided by the recent Act, which was more advantageous than the scale on which they at present retired. The Superannuation Act had been framed by Parliament after long and deliberate consideration, and it could scarcely be deemed advisable to prevent those officers whose case was dealt with by his Bill from coming under the operation of the Act, unless some special reason could be shown for their exclusion. That they did not deserve to be the objects of an unjust exception he thought it hardly necessary to show at any length. There was no body of men whom it was more the interest of the country to reward for the due performance of their duties, to whom more responsible functions were intrusted, or to whom contentment of mind was more essential in the discharge of their avocations than the officers of prisons, and he believed at the present moment there was no body of men who better deserved encouragement. The time had long gone by when prison officials offered a fit theme for the novelist and satirist, when gaolers such as Jonathan Wild existed, and when the state of our prisons was such ns to excite detestation and horror. A higher moral tone has found its way into the conduct of those establishments. It was no longer thought necessary to commit the criminal to the care of men of violent temper and poor education; but in the governors of our prisons it was required that judgment and discretion should be added to experience, and that they should be men to whom the task of reforming, as far as possible, the more flagrant vices in the inmates could be intrusted. To men in whom such a com- bination of qualities was requisite, it was surely a palpable injustice to award an inferior class of retiring allowances. But if this were the case with governors, in how much higher degree must these requirements extend to the chaplains, who, to the zeal of the missionary, without any of the excitements of foreign travel, were required to combine the earnestness of the devotee with the insight of a philosopher, that they might administer the divine consolation of their profession without, at the same time, "becoming in any degree the dupe of unreal repentence, or seeming piety. Of such a class had been the chaplain of the prison at Preston, who, after thirty-seven years of unrecognized labour, died in the discharge of his duty because, though long past the age when public servants of any other class would have retired, his circumstances did not permit him to do so without the acknowledgment that the present state of the law rendered it impossible to confer. The medical officers, likewise, in the discharge of their uninteresting and monotonous duties had to contend with the difficulty of maintaining the discipline of the prison and of allowing, at the same time, for the moral and physical depression which naturally attended incarceration. On what principle, then, could it be said that these gentlemen should be continued on a footing different from that of other civil servants of the Crown? The only difference between them consisted in the fact that their pensions would be payable, not out of the Consolidated Fund, but from local taxation. It might be said that the measure ought to have been brought forward by the Government, and not by an independent Member. But in 1859 a memorial had been signed by every prison officer in England and Wales, and by the visiting justices of forty-two prisons, in favour of the objects of this Bill; and yet the Government had not thought it right in the interval to take any action in the matter. They might have considered, not improperly, that, as the burden was to be imposed on local taxation, it would be more advisable that the measure should emanate from the unpaid magistracy, who were to be dispensers of the bounty. To one hon. Gentleman whose name was on the back of the Bill an apology was due, as he had reason to believe that he still adhered to the opinion that Her Majesty's Government should have been the persons to propose the measure; and had he enter- tained any hope that they would do so he should have been glad to leave the matter in their hands. With the exception of a single clause making provision for officers whose pensions were discontinued, there was no reason to believe that by the operation of the Bill a single additional shilling would be added to local taxation, while it would relieve the magistrates from the very invidious and uncomfortable task of weighing the merits of individual officers in each particular case. He confined his observations now to the principle of the Bill, but he should be ready to meet any objections that might be taken to it in Committee. He had received some letters in which the age of sixty was objected to, and suggestions were made that a more distant limitation as to age should be adopted. He could only say that this question had been thoroughly scrutinized by the House, and he could not believe that the austere virtue of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would suffer him to continue a limit which he believed to be improper; he intended, therefore, to propose in Committee that the officers of local prisons throughout the country should be placed on the same footing, with regard to superannuation, as the officers of the Government prisons at Packhurst and Pentonville. It was a good and sound principle to take as much as they could out of the mature life of a man for the public service of the country; but they did not want him to remain in it after he was utterly exhausted. He could not imagine any principle more injurious to the public service than that they should imitate the seceding States of America, where they used up their slaves and continued them at work till they died. According to the present system officers of prisons were not allowed to retire till they proved their incapacity by reason of continued sickness, age, or infirmity. There was a period—often a very long one—when a man began to feel that he was discharging his duty feebly, and yet he was unwilling to own to himself, and others were unwilling to tell him, that he ought to retire. In illustration of the working of the present system, he would refer to one or two facts connected with the prison of which he was a visiting justice. Five superannuations had been granted within a short period in the West Riding of Yorkshire; two of those were only of a few months' standing; in the other cases, however, one had been granted at sixty-six years of age, and the recipient died at sixty-seven; another at thirty- three years of age, and the man to whom it was granted died at thirty-four; and the other was granted to a man aged fifty-four, who died at fifty-eight. The average number of officers in the prison with which he was best acquainted was ninety-seven; and within the last ten years twenty of these had died, only two of them living till they were sixty. Indeed it had been calculated that exactly double the number of prison officials died in proportion to those who were under their charge. He trusted hon. Members would believe that he had not undertaken this matter in any captious or dogmatic vein, but merely from a desire that these officers should be fairly remunerated, and their retiring allowances placed on a sound footing. The House would remember that in the present state of public opinion most sacred duties connected not only with the correction but with the reformation of criminals had been entrusted to these gentlemen. It was now something like fifteen years since he had assisted in the passing of measures which had resulted in diminishing the crime of this country in proportion to the increase of population beyond the expectations of the most sanguine, and he was only asking the House to do justice to those persons who were to administer this improved system, and who ought not to have added to their other troubles and anxieties the discomfort of anxious and discontented minds.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. HENLEY

said, that when this Bill was first introduced he certainly looked on it with great distrust, and that distrust had not been removed by the speech of the hon. Gentleman in moving the second reading. He quite agreed with that hon. Member in everything he had said in praise of the officers in their various grades now employed in the prisons of this country—nothing he had said would more than do justice to that valuable class of officers; but this Bill rested on two assumptions:—First, that there was a complete analogy between persons employed in county and borough gaols and the civil servants of the Crown—that was the first assumption upon which the whole argument of the necessity for putting those parties on an improved footing was based. The next assumption was that for want of such an arrangement it was necessary to keep such officers in their places when they had passed the vigour of their life, and had become inefficient and unfitted to perform their duties. In the civil service the ordinary rule was that persons entered at an early age, their salaries were gradually raised, and their whole lives were passed in the particular office which they entered. But that was not at all the case with the officers of country prisons, many of the most meritorious servants in which had been in the army or navy, and were in receipt of pensions derived from those branches of the service. As a general rule these officials had arrived at middle age before they took office in the country gaols. If magistrates were compelled to allow them retiring pensions at sixty, which age they would often reach after ten years' service, the rule would probably exclude such persons altogether from such appointments. As to the class of persons who now held the office of turnkeys, he would ask whether any cases could be pointed out where such persons were unfit for their office, being retained or remaining on account of a sufficient power to grant pensions, and whether the blue book would furnish them with any instances of that kind? The hon. Member for Pom-fret had directed attention to the case of the doctors. Why, the doctors were usually gentlemen who were in practice in the towns where the prisons were situated, and in return for a fixed salary, they agreed to attend to the medical necessities of the prisoners; but he could not understand why such persons were to have pensions any more than the medical officers of a union. The hon. Member said that these officials should be brought under these provisions because they had been passing new superannuation laws; but the salaries of turnkeys were not arranged acccording to a uniform rule, but were adjusted on the consideration whether they were to have retiring allowances or not. But the House was now asked, by ex post facto legislation, to throw perhaps hundreds of turnkeys upon the county rates for retiring allowances. He believed there had been no serious or general complaints to the Home Office respecting the manner in which magistrates had exercised the powers of the existing law. This was a very large question, and one which he thought should be left in the hands of the Executive Government. He would not then enter in the details of the Bill; if any analogous measure were to be looked to he was inclined to think it should be to the police; but, so far as his own experience had gone—and he had lived through several generations of gaolers, some of whom had died in harness—he saw no necessity for the changes proposed by this Bill, and he should, therefore, oppose its second reading.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, that the Bill involved two principles—one, the increase of the scale of pensions which might be given to county prison officers; the other the assimilation of the existing system of superannuation in respect of those officers to that applicable to members of the Civil Service. But it must not be supposed that no provision of the kind suggested by his hon. Friend at present existed. By the 30th section of the 5 &c 6 Vict., c. 98, it was lawful for persons having the control of the finances of county prisons to grant an annuity by way of superannuation allowance to any officer of either sex who should, "from confirmed sickness, age, or infirmity," become incapable of executing his or her duty. The scale of pension in such cases was not to exceed that laid down in the General Superannuation Act, 4 &c 5 Wm. IV., c. 24, the Superannuation Act in force generally before the more recent Act, which made an alteration in the scale allowed to civil servants. The two scales did not differ materially, though the latter was somewhat more favourable to the members of the civil service. He could not see that any case had been made for a change in respect of the officers in county gaols. Certainly the reports of the Prison Inspectors made no complaint on that head. At present the magistrates had a discretion; but the Bill of his hon. Friend would make it compulsory on them to give pensions exactly equal to the scale in the Act relating to the civil service. He did not think that such a change was called for, or that it was desirable to give magistrates the right of bestowing a pension on any officer above the age of sixty without a medical certificate. The case of the police force had been referred to by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley); but in that case there were stoppages in the pay on account of the superannuation afterwards allowed. Besides it was necessary to grant more favourable terms of retirement to policemen, by reason of the nature of the duty in which they were engaged. He thought that if the House once adopted the principle that the system of superannuating local officers ought to be assimilated to that which had been esta- blished in the Civil Service they would embark in a course attended with great danger. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) said that the case was one for the Executive Government; but he thought it was one rather for the magistrates and other gentlemen engaged in local affairs, and until they expressed their desire for a change he should not be disposed to support such a system as that advocated by his hon. Friend the Mover of the Bill.

MR. KENDALL

was of opinion that the Bill required alteration; but he thought, at the same time, that it ought to get a second reading.

MR. JOHN TOLLEMACHE

thought that a measure of this kind should have the Government support to sustain it. On that ground he had declined to have his name put on the back of the Bill, though his hon. Friend had done him the honour of placing his name on it. He thought it was a Bill that should emanate from the Government, and that it was a just Bill, which would work fairly in regard to the public interests and the officers of gaols; and if the age at which these officers were entitled to retire on pensions were altered from sixty to sixty-five he should support it.

SIR BALDWIN LEIGTITON

thought that the persons who made the appointments should be those who granted the pensions; and he drew attention to the fact that in various cases the appointment of gaoler to county gaols had been made, not by the magistrates, but by the high sheriff. In fact the high sheriff had the power of nominating any person to the office of gaoler, although it was true he in most cases left that duty in the hands of the magistrates. The position of officers of gaols had been very much improved lately, and he thought if the magistrates had erred at all they had erred on the side of giving too much instead of too little. He must say he did not see any necessity for this Bill, the second reading of which he should oppose.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, that if the Bill went to a Committee it would require much amendment before it could pass. The only real objection that he had heard with reference to it was that by it the door would be open for the admission of a new principle, because if the Superannuation Act were extended to prison officials it must, in justice, be extended to all the officers who were paid out of the County Funds. But what was the fact? Why, that the principle had been already laid down, and it was quite competent for the House to say that it would extend it to the officers of gaols without going any further. He thought it was most desirable that these officers should know to what pensions they were entitled. He should, therefore, subject to Amendment in Committee, support the second reading of the Bill.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

hoped that no further powers would be given in regard to county expenditure until some system of a better organization than existed at present was established, by which the county ratepayers would have a voice in the matter.

MR. HUMBERSTON

thought he should be able to induce the House to adopt an Amendment in Committee, which would make the Bill permissive and not compulsory.

MR. MITFORD

observed, that good and efficient officers were obtained under the present system; but he feared that the Bill would have an injurious effect in this respect, and, therefore, would oppose the second reading.

MR. AYRTON

should vote against the second reading. The right hon. Baronet (Sir George Lewis) seemed to think this was a question which solely affected the gentlemen who, as county magistrates, were engaged in superintending prisons and granting these compensations. That, however, would only be true if they paid these superannuations out of their own pockets; but the measure seemed rather intended to relieve some tender-hearted gentlemen by taxing the community for the benefit of a class. He could not conceive the least necessity for this Bill.

MR. CHARLES PACKE

had never heard of any objection to the present working of the law. In every case where application was made for superannuation; and where it was allowed by law, the magistrates were extremely liberal in awarding a retiring allowance. He thought, too, that the Bill was a most unwarrantable interference with the existing rights of the local authorities. He considered that there ought to be a very strong case indeed made out before they were induced to alter the present law. He did not think such a case had been made out, and he should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Ques- tion to add the words "upon this day six months."

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

said, that he had no wish to avail himself of the last Motion in order to make a second speech, but he thought the House should know what was the present state of the law with regard to retiring allowances. The words of the Act were, "confirmed sickness, age, or infirmity." He took it that those words could not mean confirmed age, but that the object was to exclude temporary sickness; and that any person who, from age, infirmity, or confirmed sickness, should be unable to perform his duties, would be entitled to receive a pension.

MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEY

opposed the Bill upon the ground that it would have a tendency to make public servants independent of the magistrates, and would encourage improvident habits. If a person appointed to a public office chose to live up to his income, he ought not in his old age he allowed to fall back upon the public funds for a means of support.

MR. MONCKTON M1LNES,

in reply, said he had no desire to press the measure forward against the wish of the House. If the Bill went into Committee he would be ready to adopt any Amendment that might be suggested by Gentlemen of experience. He would have no objection to make the Bill permissive if it was the wish of the House.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 140: Majority 79.

Words added. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.