§ (2.) £39,996, to complete the sum for Law Charges, England.
§
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a sum, not exceeding £135,079, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for Criminal Prosecutions at Assizes and Quarter Sessions in England, including Adjudications under the Criminal Justice Act and the Juvenile Offenders Acts, for Sheriffs Expenses, Salaries to Clerks of Assize and other Officers, and for Compensation to Clerks of the Peace.
MR. GORSTmoved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £3,874, being the amount of the salaries and expenses of the Examiners of Criminal Law Accounts. His reason for asking the Committee to strike out this item was that the functions of these officers, which had before been mischievous, had now, in consequence of the Treasury 1013 Minute, been rendered altogether useless. The Examiners of Criminal Law Accounts were officers who had been in existence for 20 years. After their first appointment there had been a great reduction in the cost of criminal prosecutions; but it was a great question whether that reduction had been of advantage to the country, or whether it was caused by the operations of these officers. The Treasury had adopted the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc, and upon that virtuous plea the Commissioners had been continued down to the present time. Whatever might have been the advantage of their first appointment, he had the authority of distinguished Members of the present Government that their action had been wholly mischievous. The present Home Secretary had expressed that opinion on more than one occasion. The Examiners had only discharged the function of re-taxing in an illegal manner the costs of prosecutions that had been previously taxed in a legal manner, and they had succeeded, by ignorance of the circumstances and by arbitrary rules in disallowing a certain amount of the expenses of criminal prosecutions. This state of things was put an end to in the present year by the Treasury Minute, and these Examiners had now no useful functions to fulfil. The Treasury Minute made an invidious distinction between the costs incurred at assizes and the costs incurred at quarter sessions. When the costs incurred at assizes had been taxed by the officers of assize they were to be paid in full, and were not re-examined by these gentlemen for the purpose of making disallowances. There was to be no audit of the costs of prosecutions at assizes, and what, therefore, was the use of keeping up this expensive staff? But with regard to the costs of prosecutions at the sessions they were to be thrown on the local authorities—although it had been admitted that that was not a proper charge to throw upon them—who were to have a subvention—not a repayment—in consideration of their having thrown upon them a burden which they ought not to bear. That, in his judgment, was a retrograde step, quite contrary to the prevailing opinion of the day, that the cost of administering justice was an Imperial affair, and should be defrayed from the Imperial Exchequer. And the reason 1014 given for it was that the taxation of the officers of the Assize Courts could be trusted, while that of the clerks of the peace could not be trusted. The clerks of the peace, however, held as good a position as the clerks of assize. They held a freehold office; they were appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, who represented the Crown, and in Lancashire by the Crown itself, and could not be removed except for misconduct in their office. He would ask whether the Government really thought there was any purpose left for which the Examiners under the present law should be paid £4,000 a-year? He would ask whether the Government thought the system of subventions could last three years? It had been clearly pointed out that the system would produce the greatest confusion in the administration of justice. The magistrates would soon find out that in heavy cases this system of subventions would greatly increase the amount by which the ratepayers would be burdened; whereas if the committals were made to the assizes, the whole of the expenses would come upon the Consolidated Fund. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that magistrates would go on committing prisoners to sessions, when by doing so they would throw a heavy burden on the local rates? The cases for trial at assizes would be multiplied, and the time of the Courts taken up until it would become necessary to increase largely the number of the Judges. He would also ask whether the average would be of the slightest use at the end of three years? The present average had been struck under circumstances of an irritating character. At the end of three years it would be rejected altogether, and the processes under which it had been arrived at would be repudiated. They would find that they had paid £12,000 for a number of accounts and figures and statements which all the local authorities in the country would repudiate. He therefore thought he had established a clear case of saving the country £4,000 a-year, and moved the reduction of the Vote by that amount.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £131,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
1015
the 31st day of March 1876, for Criminal Prosecutions at Assizes and Quarter Sessions in England, including Adjudications under the Criminal Justice Act and the Juvenile Offenders Acts, for Sheriffs' Expenses, Salaries to Clerks of Assize and other Officers, and for Compensation to Clerks of the Peace."—(Mr. Gorst.)
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked that, although his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham said he would not discuss the Treasury Minute of January last, yet he immediately began it discuss it, and to pour forth a string of opprobrious epithets against the Examiners of Criminal Law Accounts, the system of subventions, and everybody whom he could bring within the reach of his lash. Some time ago there was a discussion brought on by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the subject of this Minute, and he thought that the merits of the case were then debated, and that he explained the views of the Government with regard to it. His hon. and learned Friend asked whether he thought the system of subventions would continue for three years? "Well, he did not think it was at all likely to continue so long, if the Government were met in the sort of spirit in which it appeared they were to be met. If there were a disposition on the part of Parliament to act liberally towards the local authorities and to make subventions on a liberal scale towards various items of local expenditure, it was but reasonable, and, indeed, it was essential to the maintenance of the system that Parliament should be prepared to maintain a proper system of check and audit of the grants so given. If it were said—"You must not look into expenditure, but you must give us what you tell us you want," he was sure that Parliament would soon get sick of subventions, and the system would probably come to an end within three years. The Examiners were appointed to see that the money granted by Parliament as a matter of grace and favour in order to relieve local funds was properly applied. His hon. and learned Friend, however, wished Parliament to give this money without any check or control whatever. [Mr. GORST: No.] Then he did not know what his hon. and learned Friend intended. How were the Government to know what sum they were to pay? If by the certificate of the Taxing Masters, then how were the Government 1016 to exercise any independent audit of their own? During the 10 years from 1837 to 1846, when half the costs were paid by the Treasury and half by the local authorities, the annual average was £214,624; during the next 10 years, when the whole costs were paid by the State, and before Examiners of Costs were appointed, the average rose to £252,740—an increase of £38,116 a-year; and when the Examiners began their work the average fell to £ 195,000. This fact showed that the Examiners exercised a considerable check in the interests of economy. On the other hand, their interference, as it was called, had, no doubt, been annoying and vexatious to the local authorities, and, with regard to assize expenses, it was unjust, because the clerk of assize, who assessed the sums to be paid, had no kind of privity with the local authorities, and if the Examiners disallowed some of the items which he allowed, the county treasurer was obliged to provide the difference. The Government proposed to put an end to this obvious injustice, and to say that the county should not suffer at all in the matter of expenses at assizes, the Government dealing with this question upon Imperial principles, and taking care that these costs were properly taxed. But, then, it was said—"You are making an invidious distinction between assizes and sessions; clerks of the peace are as independent of the county authorities as clerks of assize." This might be, yet there was no doubt that the position of clerks of the peace towards the local authorities differed materially from that of clerks of assize, and it did not follow as a matter of course that you were to put the administration of justice at sessions and assizes upon the same footing. Was Parliament to say that the whole administration of justice throughout the country should be treated as an Imperial affair, and so put an end to the system of the local administration of justice? He did not say that we might not come to this; but the subject was a large one, and ought not to be decided in Committee of Supply upon the question of the salaries of these two officers. The Secretary of State had informed the House that he was considering the tables of fees and other charges, and he had stated that the Government were considering the proper mode of dealing with the costs 1017 incurred in the administration of justice. In one particular they thought the duties of the Imperial Government were not yet fully discharged. But the question was not yet ripe for discussion, and it would be wholly premature to attempt to decide it upon a Vote like this.
MR. GORSTsaid, that he did not dispute that the costs should be taxed, and taxed most rigorously. What he objected to was that the local authorities were required to provide taxing officers, and then their taxation was rejected. He admitted that he held the principle that the administration of justice was an Imperial affair, and that it was the duty of the Imperial authorities, and not of the local authorities, to bear the costs of prosecutions and to provide proper officers for auditing the accounts. Let the Treasury send down their own officers. It was not a pleasant duty, and it was not one for which the clerks of the peace would exhibit any great tenacity of adherence; but taxation having been made by persons who were acquainted with local circumstances ought not to be reviewed in London by persons who were ignorant of those local circumstances.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought that, on the whole, the Examiners had performed very useful functions, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not informed the Committee what would be their duty in the future. It seemed that they would have no duties under the system which had been resolved on by the Treasury.
§ MR. PELLsaid, the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend had been objected to as severe; but they were justified by the facts, and in 1872 the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) said, without objection, that the disallowances by the Examiners amounted to robbery. He could not bring himself to think, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the administration of justice was a local object, or that the sum paid by the Treasury could justly be termed a subvention. How could that be a subvention which fell short of what Parliament undertook to do more than 30 years ago? Sir Robert Peel then intimated that the whole of the charges in respect of criminal prosecutions should be borne by the Treasury. In consequence of the action taken thereupon something like extravagance followed; but that had been 1018 corrected, and a considerable reduction in the charges for prosecutions had been the result. After that came the establishment of this office, in which much less than justice was done to the local authorities. Either the charges for criminal prosecutions were proper, or they were not. If they were not, and if the clerks of the peace in the counties did not, as taxing masters, understand their business, then it was the duty of the Government to take the matter in hand and put an end to a state of things which no action of the Court of Quarter Sessions or the ratepayers would be able to set to rights. An expectation had been raised by the Queen's Speech that this subject would be dealt with to some extent at least in connection with the appointment of a public prosecutor, but that expectation had not been realized. The present Prime Minister had stated in 1872 in remarkably terse and powerful terms all that was asked when he used these words—"What they required was fixed charges and prompt payment."—[3 Hansard, ccx. 72.] But they had never got the one nor the other. If his hon. and learned Friend should go to a division he would support him.
§ MR. BRISTOWEsaid, he had the pleasure of knowing a great many gentlemen who acted as clerks of the peace in various parts of the country, and certainly it appeared to him that they were persons who properly discharged their duties. But, in his opinion, the present system was not satisfactory, and required improvement. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division.
MR. SCOURFIELDentered his protest against treating a question connected with justice as a purely financial matter. Those who had some experience considered that a failure of justice often occurred in consequence of the present unsatisfactory state of things. The cost of criminal prosecutions in counties and boroughs was estimated at £135,000. Was that such a vast sum for securing law and order, seeing that we spent such enormous amounts on other matters? The maintenance of law and order in the country was even of still greater importance than the promotion of Science and Art. Some people spoke as if there were only two parties in the country, but that was a mistake. There was a large party who were strictly neither Conservative nor Liberal, but perhaps 1019 more powerful than either, and that was the party which did not like to be annoyed.
§ MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had great respect for clerks of the peace, but believed they were not the persons to check their own accounts, and that the supervision employed over them had produced very good effects. He would suggest, however, to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was not possible to avoid causing the annoyance and irritation created by the rejection of accounts or portions of accounts.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, they were making a change of system, and he was far from thinking that they could by one blow put it exactly on the footing on which they would like it permanently to stand. Altering the system entirely involved many considerations of a very serious kind. They had two different systems of administration of justice—one carried on by the Judges of the land, assisted by high-paid State functionaries, and paid by the State out of Imperial funds. Concurrently with that there was another system of administration of justice by the unpaid magistracy of the country, assisted by officers paid out of local funds, not in any way subject to Imperial authority. The question was how to harmonize the whole system. The objection to the present system was not so much the amount disallowed as the annoyance occasioned by correspondence between the clerks of the peace and other officers and the Treasury with the Criminal Law Examiners at their backs. He was bound to say, from all he had seen, a very large proportion of the disallowances arose from the non-insertion in the accounts sent up of items such as the number of miles travelled or witnesses for the Crown examined which might easily be supplied, but which were very often omitted. With reference to the immediate future, the Examiners would have important duties to discharge which it would be difficult to dispense with. They would go over the accounts of the prosecutions, which then could be paid in full to the county treasurer; but they would have to check and keep the charges within bounds as to what was allowed. It would be their duty also to check the accounts sent up by the clerks of assize. With regard 1020 to the sessions cases he was anxious to work carefully and fairly the system of averages. That was proposed tentatively, and would require to be carefully watched with a view to the re-consideration of the whole question.
§ MR. GOSCHENagreed with the general proposition as to the necessity for control where Imperial contributions or subsidies of any kind were given and anything was left in the matter to the local authorities. He was, therefore, disposed to support the Government in that view—that, so long as the administration of justice was local to a certain extent, and so long as the cost borne by the Imperial Exchequer was indispensable, there should be a proper audit at the instance of the Imperial Government; but he did not quite see how there was to be a proper check if the system of allowances was to be done away with.
§ MR. WHITWELLsaid, he thought much of the inconvenience now felt arose from the want of properly defined and known law charges.
§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOTtestified that there was great irritation in the country with respect to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter, on the ground that payments were to be made on the average of the last three years, during which considerable reductions were made, and arbitrarily made, without any means being afforded for redress. If, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adopt some means to have the charges which would be allowed more generally known there would be far less difficulty than at present. He could not vote for the Amendment, because some supervision was necessary, although the mode at which it was arrived at was not satisfactory.
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTcomplained of the distinction drawn between Courts of Quarter Session and Courts of Assize, deeming the former entitled to consideration on account of their honorary character. He would remind his Friends on the Treasury Bench that in 1872 a Member of the Government (Sir Massey Lopes) described a saving of £13,000 as petty larceny, and said the Examiners were obliged to be vexatious, disagreeable, active, and fussy, to make the Government think they were of some use. He (Mr. Talbot) should like 1021 to learn what improvement had been effected since that strong language was used?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the distinction between the two Courts was obvious on the face of the Minute. He hoped that in the case of the Assize Courts, at all events, it would be found that the principle adopted was free from the charge of vexation and irritation, for it was meant to be liberal, and by the contributions made to local finance during the last two years the Government had shown willingness to do the best it could with the whole system of local administration. With respect to this question of assizes it was admitted in the Minute that the Government had not arrived at a complete solution of the difficulty in the way of a satisfactory relationship between the Treasury and the great judicial establishments of the country. That relationship was of a very delicate and difficult character; and though he hoped in the long run to be able to arrive at some proper arrangement by means of which they would be able to put a restraint upon the taxation of costs in the Assize Courts, he did not profess to have yet devised a plan by means of which that was to be done. It was obvious, however, that the Examiners would be of very great service. His own opinion was, that it would be most convenient if they were to have an officer of their own to go round with the officers of assize for the purpose of assisting occasionally in the taxing of the costs. That was a matter which required a great deal of consideration, and it could hardly be dealt with properly until they came to deal with the whole of the questions between the judicial establishments and the Treasury. He hoped that the Home Secretary would be able to meet one of the difficulties by the establishment of a proper system of fees.
§ MR. GOSCHENYou do not surrender the principle of the allowance?
§ MR. FLOYERsaid, he did not understand whether the new arrangement was to be permanent, or a new average was to be struck for every year. If this was not explained, he should, another year, vote against the Motion.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the average taken now would be in force for three years, when a fresh one would be made.
MR. GORSTsaid, the Rules of the House did not allow him to submit an alternative plan now, but he favoured the suggestion of the Home Secretary that officers of the Treasury should be sent to tax the costs on the spot.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 266: Majority 227.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £129,879, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Court of Chancery in England as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHdrew attention to the fact that the travelling expenses of the Masters in Lunacy were still charged at the old posting rate of 1s. 6d. per mile. He thought this altogether unreasonable at the present day, and he therefore moved to reduce the amount of the Vote by £500.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £129,379, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Court of Chancery in England as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
§ MR. W. H. SMITHadmitted that the noble Lord had pointed out what looked like an anomaly; but there was a distinct understanding that the Masters in Lunacy should receive travelling expenses at this rate. The Treasury had no power to reduce the amount, and Lord Hatherley, when Lord Chancellor, having inquired into the matter, had decided that no reduction could be made in the allowance. He was, therefore, obliged, very reluctantly, to oppose the reduction moved by the noble Lord.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpresumed that, although the Treasury could not reduce the Vote, the House of Commons could, and he hoped the hon. 1023 Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), in his capacity as Member for Westminster, would assist them in refusing this amount.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 177; Majority 57.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (5.) £46,526, to complete the sum for the Common Law Courts.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHasked under what modifications the new appointment of Queen's Remembrancer had been made, as the Commissioners had reported against the office being filled up? He understood that it was the practice for this officer to be also a Master of the Queen's Bench, his salary for this office being £1,500 a-year, whilst as Remembrancer he had £500 a-year more. There were also five clerks in the office, whilst if the office of Remembrancer were done away with three would be ample.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the office had been filled up; but he could not say what modifications had been made with reference to the appointment. He would, however, make inquiries as to this point. The whole matter as to these offices would be considered under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act Amendment Bill.
§ MR. GOSCHENsaid, probably the First Lord of the Treasury, or some other Member of the Government who was responsible for the appointment, would be able to state whether, when the office was filled up, the recommendations of the Legal Departments Commissioners were duly carried out.
§ MR. DISRAELIsaid, he filled up the office in deference to the recommendation of the Commissioners. It was thought it was for the public interest that it should be filled up. The appointment was given to a gentleman who was Master of the Queen's Bench—Sir Frederick Pollock. His own impression was that there was no increase of salary whatever.
§ MR. CHILDERSsaid, the recommendation of the Commissioners in their Report was that the office should not be filled up.
§ MR. DISRAELIThere was some authoritative recommendation that it should be filled up.
§ MR. CHILDERSremarked that no such recommendation was within the knowledge of Parliament. He hoped it would be produced.
§ MR. DISRAELIundertook to do so.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (6.) £38,635, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy, London.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he believed that this money was absolutely thrown away. What was the use of the Bankruptcy Court? In his opinion, it was worse than useless. Persons who committed monstrous frauds and swindles in London managed to get through the Court with the greatest ease with the aid of a clever solicitor. It would really be better to have no Bankruptcy Court at all, and then these predatory classes would not have the chance of making raids on society for, at least, a time.
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, that he was pretty much disposed to agree with the hon. Baronet. He had done his best to get rid of the separate jurisdiction for Bankruptcy.
§ MR. HERMONsaid, he did not quite agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury in his general condemnation of the Bankruptcy Court, although it was not quite so well administered as it ought to be.
§ MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked if it was true that the Lord Chancellor had appointed a Committee to inquire into the working of the Bankruptcy Law; and, if so, when was it likely to report?
§ MR. WHITWELLsaid, he understood the Committee referred to was a Departmental one, and that it was not likely to report before the Prorogation of Parliament.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (7.) £299,758, to complete the sum for the County Courts.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKasked for some explanation as to the travelling expenses of the County Court Judges?
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the County Court Judges were allowed 3d. per mile when they travelled by rail, 2s. per mile when they travelled by road, and 21s. per night when absent from home.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (8.) £69,186, to complete the sum for the Courts of Probate and Divorce.
1025§ (9.) £9,242, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry.
§ (10.) £4,048, to complete the sum for the Land Registry Office.
§ (11.) £10,574, to complete the sum for the Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
§ (12.) £240,395, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police.
§ MR. GOSCHENinquired what the intention of Her Majesty's Government was with respect to the subvention in aid of local taxation proposed last year in respect of police expenses, and as to which a Continuance Bill for one year had been laid on the Table of the House.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that before a satisfactory arrangement could be made on the subject referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, it was desirable that several questions relating to the police should be considered and brought under the notice of Parliament. Last year, when the Government decided on making subventions to local taxation, it was proposed to add one-fourth to that which had previously been granted. Last year the Government simply passed a Bill to enable them to make the increased payment this year, and he and the Home Secretary had hoped to have been able this Session to have introduced a Bill that would have put the matter on a more permanent footing. The pressure of Business, however, having been considerable, and the question being one which involved points of complexity likely to lead to a discussion, Her Majesty's Government had thought it better to let the matter stand over, and bring in a measure next Session to settle the principle upon which the contributions should be made in future. He should, therefore, ask the House to continue the Act of last Session for one year more.
§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURpointed out that the policemen now maintained throughout the United Kingdom had largely increased of late years, especially in the English counties, where they had nearly doubled within a few years, and now that so large a portion of the expenses of this force was defrayed out of the Exchequer it might be expected, as the usual result of people who had to spend the money of others, that both the expenses and numbers of the police would 1026 rapidly increase. It would, therefore, be a wise and right step to have a full and complete Report on the whole of the police of the United Kingdom, not only as to numbers but as to grades, pay, and all allowances and expenses under heads as clear and specific as for soldiers and sailors in the Army and Navy Estimates, and the expenditure as carefully and strictly examined into as for these two great branches of the public service. At present it was utterly impossible for any private Member to ascertain either the numbers or cost of the force maintained, owing to the objectionable mode in which money was voted for this purpose. All that he could attempt to do was to state the total outlay for police to amount to about £4,000,000 out of the Exchequer, besides the money raised locally for this purpose; and the Government must see that it would be desirable that the Committee should know how many policemen there were throughout the country for which force £4,000,000 were required.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was the intention of the Government to take the matter in hand. He had already given directions for certain statistics to be obtained, and he hoped that before next Session the information would be obtained.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (13.) £732,598, to complete the sum for the County and Borough Police, Great Britain.
§ MR. WHITWELLcomplained that the Government Inspectors compelled the local authorities in quiet counties, comparatively free from crime, to provide the same number of police per 1,000 as in counties densely populated and rife with crime.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it must not go forth to the public that the Inspectors had been asking generally for more police than there ought to be. He did not mean to say that in some cases this might not have happened; but it was not the intention of the Inspectors or the Government. The whole question of the county and borough police was engaging the attention of the Government, and he hoped next year to be able to state what their proposals were.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKthought that with all these annually increasing Votes it would be most difficult for the Government 1027 to control the expenditure and satisfy Parliament that there been proper economy.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (14.) £335,227, to complete the sum for Convict Establishments, England and the Colonies.
§ SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, he congratulated the Government on the abolition of the Gibraltar Convict Prison. He asked the Home Secretary if he could give the Committee any information respecting the disposal of convict labour. A difficulty had arisen in many prisons how to dispose of the articles produced in them. He admitted the evil that existed in competing with the mat trade. He suggested that the Public Departments should be the purchasers, as they were great consumers of many articles that could be made in prison. In Bavaria most of the blue cloth worn by the soldiers was made in the prisons of that country.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked whether the Convict Prison at Gibraltar had already been broken up, or whether the Government merely intended to break it up?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Convict Prison at Gibraltar had already been broken up, and the greater number of the prisoners had been brought away. With regard to the question of prison labour, he had received frequent deputations from the mat-makers, whose industry did seem to be rather unduly pressed and the mat market glutted by prison labour. This being so, he had endeavoured to turn the attention of the governors of gaols to the production of other articles, and no doubt there were many such articles which Government Departments might take. As one example, he had this year entered into a large contract for making up by convict labour the clothing of the Metropolitan Police, which was furnished in a very good and substantial way and at a somewhat cheaper rate than it could be bought for in the open market. The principle was a sound one, but could only be adopted by degrees.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (15.) £75,990, to complete the sum for County Prisons, Great Britain.
§ SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, the Prisons Act had produced a great effect 1028 in regard to giving us satisfactory and proper prisons; but in regard to prison labour it did not seem to him there was that uniformity throughout the country which it was the object of the Act to enforce. In some prisons the prisoners were kept at hard labour during the whole of their imprisonment, in others only for the first three months. He thought it was questionable whether, after the first three months, labour at the crank should be continued, and considered that industrial labour might then be substituted for penal labour. At all events, it should be the rule and not the exception. The great difficulty was found to arise from the number of short sentences, people having been imprisoned, again and again, for periods under 15 days. Then, there was another point to which he wished to direct attention, which was, whether, as the Government paid so largely for the maintenance of prisoners, some further assistance should not be given to the Prisoners' Aid Societies, which did so much good in saving discharged prisoners from their old associates?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved, that the different matters mentioned by the hon. Baronet were now under the consideration of the Government. The Prisons Act had been in operation for 10 years, and he thought the time had come when a general survey of its operation should be made by the Government. Ample time had been given people to make up their minds with respect to it. It was very desirable that it should be known as a matter of certainty what hard labour was, and that it should mean the same thing throughout the whole country. He did not think there was that uniformity which might easily be obtained by a careful investigation. With regard to Prisoners' Aid Societies he could make no promise on the part of the Government. He could only accept and acknowledge the good which they might do when conducted on safe, sound, and prudent principles.
§ MR. W. T. STANHOPEremarked that the practical way of reforming prisoners was by teaching them how to obtain a livelihood by honest labour.
MR. H. T. COLEsaid, that a man should be taught some trade which would be useful to him when out of gaol. No fewer than 15 or 16 different 1029 kinds of labour were taught in some of our gaols—Preston, for instance. The American prisons were absolutely remunerative, and made a considerable return to the State, and when the prisoners were discharged they were presented with a sum of money which they had earned, and which enabled them to live until they obtained work, and often kept them from thieving and stealing again. It was worth remarking, in illustration of the results of different systems, that while the re-committals in Devonport Gaol were only 6 per cent, those in Exeter Gaol were 35 per cent.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (16.) £154,527, to complete the sum for Reformatories and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.
§ (17.) £22,758, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he had brought this subject several times under consideration, and he would only remark that there was quite as much reason now for the attention of the House of Commons and the Government being directed to it as there had been before. The amount of the Vote appeared as £30,258; but in addition there had been Votes to the amount of £5,240 for repairs and new works. Last year, also, that Vote amounted to £5,000. He wished to suggest that it would be desirable that a marginal note should be attached stating what sums had been taken for this asylum in previous votes. He would also suggest that the Government should consider during the Recess the desirability of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the lunacy system in the Three Kingdoms. The lunacy laws of the Three Kingdoms were different both with respect to private asylums and convict establishments. There was an additional reason why this subject should be considered by the House, which was that a sum of 4s. a-day given as a subvention would in a short time amount to £1,000,000 a-year. The Scotch had assistance given for their lunatics which was not given in England or Ireland, and in Ireland he thought wrong steps had been taken. He hoped early next Session a Committee would be appointed to take into consideration what improvements could be effected in the administration of the law in relation to criminal lunatics.
§ MR. DODSONwished to know whether the reduction in the Vote for clothing and victualling was due to economy in the purchase of articles of clothing and consumption?
§ MR. RAMSAYsaid, he hoped some inquiry would be made with the view of ascertaining the reason why criminal lunatics, which cost only £15 per head per annum in some counties, cost £45 in others. He wished particularly that Perth and Broadmoor should be contrasted.
§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the reduction in the charge of victualling was entirely owing to a difference of prices.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (18.) £14,090, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Charges, England.
§ Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday;
§ Committee to sit again To-morrow.