SECOND READING. (Hansard, 24 March 1865)

§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE
said, he contended that on public grounds this Bill ought not to be proceeded with. The object of the measure was to enable the Prison Board of Lanarkshire to enlarge the gaol at Glasgow, and to allow them to extend the cost of the undertaking over a number of years. They had not, however consulted upon that subject the Commissioners of Supply, or the other county authorities. It was not consistent with the practice of Parliament to carry out by a Private Bill any measure which could be effected by a general Act. By the 2 & 3 Vict. power was given to assess Scotland generally for the purpose of building prisons, and in addition there was a power which enabled the Local Boards to assess themselves further, and so liberally had that privilege been acted upon that £200,000 or £300,000 had been raised in different counties by the voluntary assessment of the Commissioners of Supply. He contended that the proper course to be taken was that full communication should be made to all parties concerned, and that nothing should be done without the consent of the Commissioners of Supply being previously obtained. This Bill was a proposal to place in the hands of the Prison Board the absolute power to make this assessment without the sanction of those parties, and he therefore opposed it. If this Bill were passed, though the assessment could not be made without the assent of the Commissioners of Supply, yet a Parliamentary sanction would be given to a particular proposal, which had never been fully discussed, and the House would throw upon the counties the odium of rejecting it without having had the opportunity of discussing any rival project. He objected to the Bill on principle, and hoped the House would reject it, and the more so because the Lord Advocate had a notice on the paper to bring in a Bill on the subject. He begged 195 to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

§ LORD ELCHO
said, that he seconded the Amendment solely as a matter of principle. As a Scotch Member, and having a Prison Board in the county which he represented, which might, perhaps, at one time or another take it into its head to act as the Prison Board of Lanarkshire had thought fit to do, he was of opinion that it would he well to stop the practice in limine. The case lay in a nutshell. An Act of Parliament gave Prison Boards certain powers, but the Lanarkshire Board not being able to raise a particular sum for the enlargement of Glasgow prison, without the consent of the Secretary of State and the Commissioners of Supply, they had brought in a Private Bill to enable them to do what the public Act would not admit of.

§ MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE
said, there was one monstrous injustice contemplated by the Bill. Lanarkshire was divided into three wards, and, though the district with which he was connected had not for a number of years sent a single prisoner to Glasgow, the Prison Board of that city, without consulting the proprietors of the county, took upon themselves to bring in a Private Bill in direct opposition to all the principles upon which such Bills ought to be founded.

§ MR. DALGLISH
said, the county of Lanark was divided into upper, middle, and lower wards, but it was not a Local Board, but the county Board, nominated by the Commissioners of Supply and the proper authorities in the county, which promoted this Bill. He could say that, as far as regarded the amount of assessment, the city of Glasgow was not adequately represented by the county Board. The county Board resolved that a certain addition to the prison should be made, but it was found that they had no power under the general Act. The county Board took the best advice they could, and this Bill was the result of their deliberations. The people of Glasgow had no desire to increase the prison, it was a matter of necessity, and this mode of doing it was considered the best. He hoped, then, the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time.

§ MR. BLACKBURN
said, he opposed the Bill on the ground that the Board had been elected to discharge certain duties, and that they were not entitled to go beyond them. He wanted to know if they were prepared to give power to the Prison Board to assess and do as they liked, without consulting the wishes of their constituents.

§ MR. CRAUFURD
said, he wished to ask would the House allow that to be done by a side wind which Parliament in its wisdom had not permitted under the sanction of the public Act? Ought they not rather to look at the question from a public point of view, and hear first what the Lord Advocate had to say when he should introduce his Bill for altering the very section out of which the present difficulty had arisen?

THE LORD ADVOCATE
said, the promoters of the Bill had agreed to make the exercise of their powers dependent on the Commissioners of Supply. He thought it would have been better if the Prison Board, before coming to Parliament, had communicated with the Commissioners of Supply. However he should not oppose the measure. He (the Lord Advocate) was about this evening to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the general law, and if that law was altered so as to allow the Prison Board to spread their assessment over a period of years and to borrow upon their security, there would not be any need of other legislation, as that would meet the difficulties which had arisen.