HC Deb 09 August 1883 vol 282 cc2241-7

(4.) £10,033, to complete the sum for Police Courts, London and Sheerness.

(5.) £255,233, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police.

(6.) £946,698, to complete the sum for the Police, Counties and Boroughs (Great Britain).

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a question with regard to this Vote. Some time ago, when the police were first appointed, it was optional whether the counties should have the force or not. When it was made compulsory Sir Robert Peel gave them a subsidy of a quarter of the amount. When the late Government came into Office, however, they increased that subsidy to one-half, the local taxation paying the remainder. Right hon. Gentlemen who now sat on the Treasury Bench had said that would have the effect of increasing the Police all over the country, seeing that the country was going to pay one-half; and the result of that warning was that the Executive for the time being took every pains they could to guard against the appointment of any more police than was absolutely necessary. They had had the greatest difficulty, not only when he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was in Office, but when Sir George Grey was at the Home Office, in inducing the different counties to come up to the proper scale which had been laid down as the right number of police. The Government thought it right to keep down the demand on Her Majesty's Treasury; and that, he thought, met with the approval of both sides of the House. They were led to believe that that was so when they were in Office; but the Secretary of State had made a very alarming statement the other day upon another matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced it for the purpose of holding out a flag in the other direction. He said he had given instructions to all Inspectors of Constabulary to the effect that they need not trouble themselves about the arrangement which had hitherto existed, but that they might have as many police as they liked. The right hon. and learned. Gentleman wished that intelligence to be sent broadcast throughout the country. If that was so, and if the subventions increased. very much, it would be very much owing to the action of the Secretary of State. While he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was at the Home Office ample provisions were taken against the increase of the Police Forces, while the present Secretary of State made it a beast that everybody might have as many as they pleased. The Secretary to the Treasury should be warned that if there should be an increase in the subventions it would be duo to this cause.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he did not think the matter was quite as the right hon. Gentleman stated. As he understood his right hon. and learned Friend the other day, he said the Inspectors of Constabulary ought not to require, or rather were told they were not to press on an increase of police when they went to inspect the various forces in the country. It was not the case that any locality could have any number they thought necessary or desirable, for the numbers were always carefully examined, just as they were when the right hon. Gentleman opposite was in Office. The only instructions that had been given were that Inspectors, in their annual inspection, should not take upon themselves unduly, or go out of their way to press upon a locality an increase of force. There had been such cases; there were cases last year, when it came to the knowledge of the Home Secretary that the Inspector at some place—Stockport he believed it was—had recommended an increase of the force which the local authorities were not desirous of carrying out. It was merely arising from cases of this kind that the Home Secretary issued instructions to Inspectors that they were not to take undue methods of pressing increases on localities.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was glad to have this explanation, for the words of the Home Secretary conveyed a wrong impression, and he thought the Secretary to the Treasury might find a large increase as the consequence. He might mention that there was nothing new in those instructions. For many years, and while he was at the Home Office, the Inspectors were told they were not to press on an increase of police unless there was such a deficiency in numbers that they were really too small.

MR. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT

said, he hoped that the Government would give an assurance that the Police Superannuation Bill would be pressed forward early next year. He understood that throughout the whole force there was the greatest disappointment that some effort had not been made to pass the Bill this Session.

MR. HIBBERT

said, the Government were just as anxious as the hon. Member to press the Bill forward, and it was with much regret the Bill was withdrawn. He could assure the hon. Member that it was the intention of the Government, at an early period next Session, to re-introduce the Bill, and with, he hoped, more success than had attended it this Session.

Vote agreed to.

(7.) £1,500, Rewards to Police.

(8.) £309,852, to complete the sum for Prisons, England.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

inquired why Vote 16, for Convict Establishments, had been passed over?

MR. COURTNEY

said, it was by an arrangement which had been made for the convenience of discussion.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the local prisons had now been under the new system for some years; and when the system was started one of the questions that was under careful consideration was the earnings of prison labour under the new as compared with the old system. For the first year, it was difficult to make any comparison, for accounts were kept in such a different way under the old system that it was difficult to verify the results, and what appeared as the result was often wholly misleading. But, now that the new system had been in force for some years, he would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would say how far he was satisfied with the result.

MR. HIBBERT

said, the Home Secretary had made every effort in his power to obtain satisfactory information on the subject; but, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, the information at the Homo Office obtained before the prisons were taken over by the State was not of a nature to give a result with anything like certainty. But he had in his hands information for the five years previous to the taking over of the prisons, and also for five years since; and perhaps it would be the best way to read over the items. To the 31st of March, 1879, the value of prison labour was, for the year preceding, £115,708; to March 31st, 1880, £149,646; in 1881, in round figures, £148,000; in 1882, £135,000; and in 1883, to March 31st, £133,000. These were the five years since the prisons were taken over by the State. Then, the five years previous were—to September, 1874, the amount altogether was £105,000; 1875, £107,000; 1876, £114,000; and 1877, £120,000, showing a considerable increase in the net proceeds of prison labour in the latter period of five years. It might be said the gross value was raised in the latter five years very considerably over the whole of the prisons of the country. Though it was difficult to give any certain figures in respect to the earnings in the former period, the figures given of the latter five years were entirely trustworthy, and might be taken as showing very satisfactorily that prison earnings had increased very much in value since that period. He might congratulate the right hon. Gentleman opposite on that result, because the opponents of the transfer to the State were of opinion that the transfer would have the very opposite effect. He (Mr. Hibbert) was one of those opponents, and he must say the figures he had just read had very much surprised him, and showed a much more satisfactory result than he expected.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

asked how it was that the estimated extra amount from Miscellaneous Receipts for 1883–4 was £81,000, as against only £2,500 for 1882–3?

MR. COURTNEY

said, the difference was made up by the proceeds of the sale of Westminster Prison.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

wished to know why the proceeds from prison labour were put down at exactly the same sum for 1883–4 as for 1882–3? Was it found that the proceeds of prison labour were exactly the same year by year? The item he referred to would be found on page 232 of the Estimates.

MR. HIBBERT

said, these were merely estimated receipts; and, of course, they varied from year to year, being in some years higher than the figure put down.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, of course he knew it was an Estimate; but it was the same Estimate last year, £20,000. He wanted to know what were the proceeds last year, and ventured to suggest that the actual Return of last year should be taken as the Estimate for the present year.

MR. HIBBERT

said, this was the money absolutely received, so far as he was able to ascertain. The amount was very much the same from year to year; but this was not the whole value of prison labour—not the whole profit—because much was done in the way of work on the prisons and for the Departments.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he understood that the £20,000 actually came into the Treasury; but the figures given by the hon. Gentleman just now, showing the increase in the value of prison labour, included labour other than that in the actual receipts.

MR. HIBBERT

Yes; in the different Government Departments.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he understood that; but here was an Estimate of £20,000, and last year's Estimate was £20,000. Now, he wanted to know the amount of the actual receipts of last year, and why it was not taken as an Estimate of the receipts of this year?

MR. COURTNEY

said, the Estimate was made the same because the last Estimate was verified. This was the actual money received from the proceeds of making mats and other articles in prisons for sale, and the demand did not vary from year to year. It was because last year's Estimate was verified that it was repeated this year.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, the evidence before the Commission on the Penal Servitude Acts showed that sales did vary from year to year.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £138,518, to complete the sum for Reformatories and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.

(10.) £17,520, to complete the sum for the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he observed there was again an increase for Broadmoor Asylum, an increase for buildings. It was a most expensive establishment. He did not know whether the Home Office contemplated selling the present Asylum and removing it, providing another. The Home Office used to be continually engaged in trying to keep down the expenditure, and he was sorry to see it increased again.

MR. HIBBERT

said, the increase was very small indeed. For many years there had been a decrease, and the increase now was only £578.

Vote agreed to.

(11.) £41,370, to complete the sum for the Lord Advocate and Criminal Proceedings, Scotland.

(12.) £41,506, to complete the sum for the Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland.

(13.) £25,491, to complete the sum for the Register House Department, Edinburgh.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he should like to know how far matters had gone in the arrangement of the Sasine Office? It was to be done in two different ways; and, as he understood, it was to be brought up to the present time.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, great advances had been made, and he should be glad to explain to the right hon. Gentleman what had been done.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, there was formerly great danger of fire at the Register House. It was essential for such a building that it should be as nearly as possible fireproof. It appeared that it was the habit of the clerks, on leaving the Office, to rake the fires out of the grates; and the water supply and means of extinguishing a fire, should it occur, were very deficient. Had any steps been taken for security in this direction? If the Lord Advocate had no knowledge now, would he make note of it for inquiry?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, lie would take care to make inquiries in this direction.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

asked what was meant by the item "Registry of Mornings?"

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, he could give the information; but he was afraid the expla- nation would be very tedious to the Committee. The term was derived from the old custom of putting debtors to the horn. It was a form of diligence or execution.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

asked, was it still necessary?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

Yes; it is.

Vote agreed to.

(14.) £76,670, to complete the sum for Prisons, Scotland.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.