HC Deb 01 March 1877 vol 232 cc1231-47

As to Obligation to maintain Prisons.

Clause 12 (Termination of local obligation to maintain prisons) agreed to.

Clause 13 (Compensation to be made in place of prison accommodation.)


moved that the time allowed for repaying loans received from the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the purposes of this section should be made 60 instead of 35 years.


submitted that, as 35 years was the limit of the period for which prison authorities could now borrow, 60 years would be a most unreasonable term, seeing that the loans would be made at rates considerably lower than the market rates, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.


thought it would tend to a more equitable charge upon property if the term was made longer than 35 years, but that 60 years might be too long.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 12, to leave out the words "thirty-five," and insert the word "fifty,"—(Mr. Freshfield,)—instead thereof.

Question put, "That the word 'thirty five' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 74: Majority 12.—(Div. List, No. 22.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (Compensation to be made to prison authorities in respect of accommodation provided for prisoners of some other authority).

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,


moved, in page 7, line 32, to leave out from beginning of Clause to "pounds," in page 8, line 5, and insert— Where, at the passing of this Act, any prison authority has provided more than sufficient cell accommodation for the number of prisoners belonging thereto, there shall be paid to such prison authority, out of money provided by Parliament, one hundred and twenty pounds in respect of each cell over and above the number required for the prisoners of such prison authority. As the clause stood at present full compensation would be given in some cases and in others it would not. In that respect it appeared to be at variance with the spirit in which the rest of the Bill was framed. In Clause 30, for instance, it was provided that when a prison was discontinued £120 should be paid in respect to the cell accommodation for each prisoner. And by Clause 13 prison authorities having insufficient prison accommodation of their own must pay to the Exchequer for each cell provided for their district the sum of £120.


said, it would not be possible to agree to the Amendment for several reasons. Under the Gaols Act the authorities were all bound to have a certain amount of prison accommodation. In this Bill great care had been taken to put this liability at a moderate figure, and taking the daily average the maximum amount of accommodation, and no more, was required. In many gaols provision had been made for more than that maximum, and they had to be locally maintained and kept up, although some portion of the accommodation was useless. Under this Bill the local authority would be relieved from that charge, and it was by no means certain that the State could utilize this spare accommodation; and if it did there would be the cost of removal. The fact was, that the local authorities must take the rough with the smooth, remembering that the State was going to provide all the corn and hay which they would otherwise have to provide for the maintenance of their respective white elephants. At the same time, compensation would be given under the Bill in cases where local authorities had built gaols upon the understanding that they would accommodate the prisoners of a neighbouring authority; or where, having more room than they wanted, they undertook to lodge prisoners from neighbouring towns. He did not think it would be right to go further than by meeting these two cases of hardship, for otherwise the State would be saddled with charges which would make it impossible for the Government to pass the Bill. As it was, some local authorities might not get so much as others, but none would lose; there would be a gain to all.


said, that in his district the local authorities would have to take all the "rough," receiving none of the "smooth." Having a larger gaol than they themselves needed, they took 50 prisoners from Birmingham, but they would now lese the benefit of that revenue.


said, the Bill would give them the benefit of this contract so long as it existed; and though it might be only a yearly contract, yet, if it were intended to be renewed, that intention would be taken into consideration in estimating the loss suffered by the locality.


thought that the locality in such a case might fairly reckon on receiving from the State £120 for each of the 50 cells which were in excess of local requirements.


thought it would be convenient for the Committee to take the discussion at that time, upon an Amendment of which he had given Notice, as it was similar to the one under consideration, while it provided a safeguard against unreasonable demands upon the Treasury, as it proposed— That in case the Prison Commissioners shall report to the Secretary of State that the prison accommodation is in excess of the probable requirements of such district, or that the buildings are dilapidated or unsuitable, it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to decline to recommend to the Treasury to make such compensation, in whole or in part, as the circumstances of the case may demand. The right hon. Gentleman had remarked that the local authorities must take the rough with the smooth; but the fact was that the rough fell all on one side and the smooth on the other. The rough fell on those who managed the prisons properly, and handed over the best gaols to the Government. The Government required the cells, but would not pay for them; but while taking the cells they compelled the local authorities to pay for new prisons that would be built in other parts of the country out of the Imperial taxes.


said, it was an injustice that a prison authority should get nothing for unoccupied cells, and he asked for an assurance that the local authority should not, after handing over a prison to the Government, have, under Clause 30, to buy it back at the pleasure of the Home Secretary at £120 per cell.


said, it appeared to him that when a good prison had been built it was not right to give the authorities no advantage over the authorities of smaller prisons.


said, that his Amendment stood first on the Paper, although the hon. Member went further by his Amendment than he (Mr. Fresh-field) did.


called the hon. Member to Order, and pointed out that the Amendment in question was not that of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Rowley Hill), but of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Helms). An opportunity would be given for these remarks subsequently.


begged pardon. His Amendment was, however, of the same character as that of the hon. Member for Paisley.


said, that his referred only to prison accommodation in excess.


said, he did not go so far as that. In his borough they had promised extra cell accommodation, and made a contract with other places to take their prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman had really received the £120 referred to from them. What right had the Treasury to make a profit out of the passing of this Bill?


said, he did not think it desirable that the State should pay for cells which the Government were not going to use; but, in his opinion, they ought to pay for those which were required for the public service.


thought the provision for deciding the amount of compensation was of the most inadequate kind. Unless some Amendment should be made in the clause, the Government would be doing a most unfair thing, for they would take the prison accommodation without paying for it.


said, that he approved of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lancashire (Mr. Hardcastle). He doubted whether the contracts were, in many cases, definite enough to entitle them to compensation under Clause 14. In the borough which he represented (Hull) £80,000 had been expended in the erection of a new gaol, and the number of unoccupied cells would be about 150. It would be a serious thing if the borough should be deprived of that amount of accommodation without compensation.


made a few observations on the matter, with a view, as he said, of saving time when they came to the Scotch Prisons Bill. The county he represented (Ayrshire) had for some considerable time 80 or 90 cells in the county prison in excess of its requirements. The consequence was that the Government had sent them from 50 to 90 Government prisoners in order to fill up the prison, and that was done under a contract. Some time, however, after the introduction of the Bill of last year these prisoners were removed—lie would not say post hoc propter hoc—and the contract was in that way broken. The county, he held, was entitled to receive £120 from the Government for every cell in excess of their requirements in consequence of the breaking of the contract. He trusted the Government would re-consider the question, and see whether they could not do something in the direction of the course pointed out by the hon. Member (Mr. Holms).


argued that one party to a contract was entitled to withdraw from it as well as another, and expressed a hope that the Government would not give way, take care of the public purse, and not pay for cells which were not required.


said, that the object of this Amendment was to remedy the one-sided arrangement which the Bill proposed. They could not make people believe that it was fair to make one side pay and take a great deal from the other and give nothing. This arrangement would create a great deal of heartburning. He would, therefore, suggest that the Government should have nothing to do either with paying or receiving, but they should take the whole of the prisons into their own hands as they stood. It was, he added, the small boroughs which, generally speaking, would have to pay, and they would be put to considerable inconvenience by an arrangement which seemed to proceed on the principle of "Heads I win, tails you lose."


said, he hoped the Government would not be induced to hastily recede from the position they had taken up upon this matter. He thought that the proposition of the Government as it stood was a fair one for the protection of the interests of the public at large. If a prison authority had provided a slight margin of accommodation beyond its actual need it had done DO more than its duty, and if any prison authorities happened to have provided a much greater amount of cell accommodation than was likely to be required in the course of several years, he did not see why the country should be called upon to compensate them because they chose to overbuild.


said, he could not agree with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. Suppose the prison authorities in a town of 100,000 inhabitants to have made reasonable provision for the next three, four, five, or even ten years, were they to be mulcted on account of the precaution they had adopted?


said, the point involved was one of some little difficulty because of the rather complicated nature of the arrangement proposed, the substance of which was that the Government should take out of the hands of the local authorities those prisons which, having built, they had to maintain. Such an arrangement would be very favourable to the local authorities. They were now charged with maintaining a certain number of prisoners, and for the future these would be taken from their hands by the State. Then arose the question with regard to those places in which the prison accommodation required by law had not been provided, and it was said that it would be very hard and unfair that those persons who had not borne their fair share of the burden should be relieved from the charge they were now put to in order to find accommodation elsewhere for their prisoners, they not having complied with the provisions of the law. Well, the Bill provided that such authorities should be charged at the rate of £120 for each cell they ought to have built and had not built. Then came the question as to the local authorities who had provided more than the law required and had greater accommodation than they could themselves use. If they used that surplus accommodation, it must be by contract or arrangement with other local authorities, or possibly with the Government, and it was but fair that if they were receiving the benefit of those extra accommodations they should be compensated for what they lost, and in respect of the benefit of which they would be deprived. They had expended, perhaps borrowed, a large sum of money to build a commodious prison, and it was not all pure loss, as they received a rent for such portion of it as was not required for their own district. It was perfectly fair that compensation should be made in such cases in respect of the contracts or arrangements made. Such was the intention of his right hon. Friend and the Treasury, and if it was not clearly expressed in the Bill, it ought to be made clear. There remained the case of prison authorities who had built beyond the requirements of their own districts and did not make use of their extra accommodation, and the question was whether they were entitled to compensation in respect of such unused extra accommodation. Well, if the local authority had decidedly overbuilt itself, and provided that which it was not likely to want or to use for a considerable time, it would be difficult to say that they were for that provision entitled to compensation. On the other hand, in the case of a local authority which having regard to the rapid growth of their district had made provision not only for the present time, but for some years to come—there the State would come into possession of a prison which from the accommodation it afforded might save the cost of building another prison. They had therefore to consider a case of equity on the part of the State as well as the case of the prison autho- rity. It was one not free from difficulty, but the difficulty ought to be met in an equitable manner. He did not think, however, that the proposal of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) was one which would entirely meet the case. The hon. Member had gone much too roughly to work, and the effect of carrying into effect what he desired would be to land the State in a very considerable expenditure—an expenditure which, in many instances, the State would have no right to bear. On the other hand, there was something in the proposal which his hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire (Mr. Hardcastle) had on the Paper which deserved more careful consideration. It made a distinction between the case in which the local authority made proper provision for its immediate wants and for some time to come, and of the case where the accommodation was unreasonably excessive or unsuitable. The Amendment of his hon. Friend certainly contained one word to which he must take exception, and which he would like to see altered. He thought that in that portion of the Amendment which referred to the number of cells required for "the average daily number of prisoners," the word "average" should be struck out, and the word "maximum" substituted. The substitution was suggested because the local authorities were clearly bound by law to find accommodation for the maximum number. Upon the whole, looking at the matter from an equitable point of view, and considering the position in this matter of the Treasury, the State, and the prison authorities, he should be prepared to accept the Amendment if the change which he had just indicated were made upon it.


said, he had taken the "average" because it was the principle adopted throughout in the Bill, and it should be remembered that the maximum number might have been reached through exceptional circumstances.


pointed out that it was not merely the average, but the maximum number of prisoners the local authority was bound to provide for.


preferred "average" number to "maximum" number. If the policy of the Government was to undertake the management of the prisons of this country, they ought to take over all the prisons, except those that were dilapidated or unsuitable.


suggested that the Amendment of the hon. Member should be withdrawn, in order that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hard-castle) might be put.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


moved, in page 6, line 28, after the word "pounds," to insert the words— And where a prison authority has provided a prison of its own more than adequate for the accommodation of the prisoners belonging to such authority, it shall be entitled to receive, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, compensation to the extent of one hundred and twenty pounds in respect of each cell provided in such prison over and above the number of cells required for the average daily number of prisoners maintained at the expense of such authority in its own prison during the five years immediately preceding the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven: Provided always, That in case the Prison Commissioners shall report to the Secretary of State that the prison accommodation is in excess of the probable requirements of such district, or that the buildings are dilapidated or unsuitable, it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State to decline to recommend to the Treasury to make such compensation, in whole or in part, as the circumstances of the case may demand. Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."


said, it would be his duty at the proper time to move that the word "maximum" be substituted for the word "average."


had first an Amendment to propose—namely, to insert the words "not more than" before the words "one hundred and twenty pounds."


said, that if all these provisoes were to be inserted, it would be made so difficult for the prison authorities to get anything, that he doubted whether they would receive any compensation at all.


said, the Amendment only applied to gaols kept by the Secretary of State, and not to those which he might take and afterwards give up.

Amendment (Lord Frederick, Cavendish), by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "average," in line 7, and insert the word "maximum,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)—instead thereof.


doubted whether it would be necessary to retain either the word "average" or "maximum."


saw a difficulty in using either word taken by itself. He would suggest, by way of compromise, that the average should be the average of the maximum of the previous five years. If the word maximum were taken, it might destroy the claim of the gaol authorities to any compensation whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had founded his argument in favour of the word maximum upon the fact that it was the duty of the prison authorities to provide as much prison accommodation as was required. But suppose a riot broke out in the neighbourhood. The prison might then be overcrowded, and might not be able to contain the number of prisoners who might be committed. According to the Amendment, the prison authorities were to receive £120 for each cell provided above the "maximum" number of prisoners—that very maximum having been caused by the accidental overcrowding of the prison. He therefore suggested that the average should be fixed on the maximum number of the prisoners maintained during the five preceding years.


believed it was the duty of a prison authority to provide all the accommodation that could be required in any emergency; and this was done in his own county, so that the prisons were equal to the demands made upon them in the hop-picking season. The Government met them fairly by giving them compensation for all the accommodation beyond their maximum requirements, and this was all they could reasonably expect.


complained that the House had been misled in passing the second reading of the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman had now thrown over the calculations upon which he based his case, and the bribe offered to the local prison authorities had been increased at each successive stage of the consideration of the provisions in Committee.

Question put, "That the word 'average' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 199: Majority 116.—(Div. List, No. 23.)

Word "maximum" there inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 (Allowance to be made to prison authority in respect of uncompleted prison) agreed to.

As to Contracts and Debts.

Clause 16 (General saving of rights of creditors) agreed to.

Clause 17 (Determination of contracts between prison authorities) agreed to.

Clause 18 (Existing debts to be defrayed by prison authorities) agreed to.

Clause 19 (Provision as to continuing contracts).


moved, in page 8, line 12, at end, to add— and where such contract or dealing shall result in a debt or obligation to be wholly paid or discharged after the commencement of this Act, such debt or obligation shall be paid or discharged out of moneys provided by Parliament. The object of the Amendment was to supplement what seemed an omission in the clause, which only provided for contracts commencing before and terminating after the commencement of the Act, and which accordingly distributed the obligation between the prison authority and the Imperial Exchequer.


remarked that the prison authority was bound to provide a gaol free from all obligations or charges, but said that he would look into the matter before the Report, and was willing that, if necessary, the clause should be amended in the direction indicated by the hon. Member's Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

As to Classification and Commitment of Prisoners.

Clause 20 (Confinement of prisoners before and during trial).


proposed to add at the end of the clause a series of provisoes to the effect that persons on remand or committed for trial should be subject to such restraint only as was requisite to secure their attendance; that they should retain possession of money, papers, &c., under their control at the time of their arrest, unless the same constituted evidence of the charge; that a schedule of those articles should be made out by the police, and that the counsel of such persons should have free access to them at all times.


pointed out that the Amendments of which the hon. Member (Mr. Sheridan) had given Notice, although they might be held to be in some degree germane to the subject-matter of the clause, were in fact a series of fresh clauses, and could be more conveniently discussed as new clauses moved at the end of the Bill; but, though the practice was inconvenient of taking such clauses in the middle of the Bill, he considered it his duty, if they were pressed, to put them.


explained that although he did not think it would be wise to put a set of tabulated rules in such an Act of Parliament, yet he had taken the precaution when he introduced the Bill to insert a clause (Clause 35) enabling the Secretary of State to deal with the matters now in question.


said, it was a fundamental principle of the law of England that a man was presumed innocent until he was found guilty. This involved a great Constitutional principle that ought not to be left to the discretion of any Minister of the Crown or any one else.


said, that as to the use of the words "criminal prisoner," they were taken from the Gaol Act of 1865. By the rules laid down under that Act a person was not to be treated as such until after his conviction.


considered the law as it now stood an outrageous attack on the liberty of the subject. Persons charged with offences were detained and subjected to the greatest indignity. As had been clearly shown, a man was bound to be held innocent till he was proved to be guilty. In this country he was really treated as guilty till he proved that he was free of crime. He held that mere detention was all that the Government could fairly claim. Why should a man be deprived of light and heat because he was charged with an offence? Why should he be compelled to sleep on beards or be degraded in any way? The time of the person charged was in many instances valuable to him. Was it not sufficient to make him lose that without any remedy? On the other side of the Atlantic such persons enjoyed every comfort and convenience they desired. He thought the Committee was much indebted to the hon. Member for Dudley for moving this Amendment, and others in the same direction, which he hoped the hon. Member would press to a division.


said, he quite agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald). It was a scandal and a disgrace to the law of the country that a man should be treated as a prisoner whilst yet unconvicted of crime. There was no such term known to the law as "criminal prisoner" to denote a prisoner not convicted of crime, and it was not because they slipped, inadvertently no doubt, into the Act of 1865, that they should be continued now. The Home Secretary proposed to have power to frame rules for these purposes, but it was to be at his discretion, and to that he objected. He hoped the utmost resistance would be offered to this Bill of despotism and centralization, which was in distinct violation of our ancient privileges, for which the Home Secretary, though a learned lawyer, did not seem to have much respect.


thought that if hon. Members would look at the Schedule of the Act of 1865 they would find that a good deal of misapprehension existed on this subject. There were rules given in that Schedule with regard to the treatment of unconvicted prisoners. It was there laid down that such prisoners were to be kept, before trial, apart from the other prisoners; that they were to be at liberty, under certain restrictions, to procure food, clothing, and other necessaries for themselves; that they might, if they so desired, wear a prison dress, and might be required to do it if their own was insufficient, but such dress was to be of a different colour from that of the convicted prisoners; and that they were to have the option of working, but were not to be compelled to do any labour with the exception of cleaning their own cells, which, however, they might employ some one else to do, and as to most of the prisoners it must be borne in mind that they were of a class who thought the work of cleaning no hardship. There were rules also to the effect that due provision should be made for the admission of visitors, and for enabling the prisoners to carry on correspondence, regard being always had to such restrictions as the interests of justice rendered necessary. What he now wanted to do was to relax some of the rules, and this he would have power to do under Clause 35.


urged that the right hon. Gentleman should follow the precedent he had referred to himself —namely, the Prisons Act, and embody in a Schedule to this Bill his amended rules for the treatment of prisoners before trial. That would be much better than that he should take the power to make what regulations he pleased without reference to Parliament. There was no matter on which there was a stronger feeling out-of-doors.


said, everybody gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for his desire to pass a just and equitable measure, but this was a matter which should not be left to the wisdom, or it might be to chance or the caprice of prison authorities. He, therefore, agreed with the remarks that had just been made. He remembered the case of a gentleman—a clergyman from Germany, a few years ago, who was charged with a murder upon evidence of the most unreliable kind, and which was completely disproved. Yet that gentleman, who was not even committed for trial, but only remanded while the inquiry was going on, had been subjected to the grossest indignities. All this had been done with these rules in existence, and what might not be done without rules? [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: You may appeal to Parliament.] Yes, undoubtedly; and what would they get by it? They would have to wait until the whole thing had passed from memory, and at best be content with an explanation from a Home Secretary, but as to redress there would be none.


suggested that the term "criminal prisoner" ought not to be allowed to remain, when the persons to whom it was applied were in many cases not criminals. It was all very well for the Home Secretary to say they might buy what comforts they wished; but how about those who were unable to do so?


said, they treated political prisoners with greater harshness than any other nation of Europe did. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) had been arrested on suspicion and detained for some months on suspicion of Fenianism, and was then discharged. He was handcuffed for some days, however.


said, that question was not the one before the House. Under the 35th section the Secretary of State had the power to do certain acts, but they must be in mitigation of the former statute.


said, that the rules of the Act of 1865 had been found insufficient to protect unconvicted prisoners from great suffering and abuse. As rules had been laid down in the Act of 1865, would it not be right to introduce better rules in the Bill now under discussion?


pointed out that in the first schedule of the Prisons Act of 1865 it was distinctly laid down that no prisoners should be put in irons except in cases of "urgent necessity." No Act of Parliament could say more than that, and he hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not attempt to lay down any rule in this Act for the treatment of prisoners.


thought it inexpedient to re-enact the hard-and-fast lines that used to tie the hands of the Home Secretary.


hoped that the rules would be put in the Schedule. He objected to discretion being given to the Home Secretary with regard to the treatment of criminals.


moved that the Chairman report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Whalley.)


called the attention of the Committee to the fact that hon. Members had not been discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), but whether certain rules should be put into the Schedule or not. The rules of 1865 were very carefully drawn up, and he was not asking for the slightest additional power. He would recommend the hon. Member for Dudley to adopt the recommendation of the Chairman and withdraw his Amendment, in order to bring it in at a subsequent time.


said, he rose to Order. They were not discussing the question before the Committee, but another question.


said, the Question before the Committee was that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.


said, that however mild the rules might be when they were read, yet in actual practice they were very harsh. He would read an extract from the leading journal, The Times, upon the treatment of Dr. Hessel, who was some years ago subjected to the indignity of a convicted offender on a charge of murder, although nothing had been proved against him. The hon. Member was proceeding accordingly, when


asked whether an hon. Member was in Order in reading from a newspaper?


said, an hon. Member was not strictly in Order in reading from a newspaper, but Members were allowed to read extracts from books, newspapers, and other documents.


would remind the House that Dr. Hessel, on very slight evidence of identification, was subjected to the degradation of a criminal. He was stripped, washed, searched, put into a cold cell, supplied with a board for his bed and another for his chair, and was obliged to wash and scrub his cell.


said, that if the debate were adjourned he would prove that the Secretary of State had refused to relax the rule in the case of a very notable prisoner. He was prepared to show that in that case measures were taken to prevent that man preparing his defence. [Cries of "Name."] The person he referred to was one of the witnesses in the Tichborne trial, and he charged the Judge who tried that man with partiality in a corrupt administration of justice. ["Oh, oh!"]


rose to Order. He desired to know whether the hon. Member was in Order in charging Mr. Justice Brett with corruption and partiality in the administration of justice on a Motion to report Progress?


submitted that in that House any hon. Member was entitled to challenge the public conduct of any paid officer of the Crown.


observed that he understood the hon. and gallant Member had risen to Order in consequence of the observations which had been made being irrelevant to the Motion to report Progres. If his opinion were asked whether an hon. Member was entitled in his place to challenge the conduct of any public official he was bound to say that he knew of no rule to prevent it; but he must add that the observations made were not relevant to the Question before the Committee.


said, he did not wish to impute anything, personal to Mr. Justice Brett. He was when called to Order quoting from a letter he had written to the Secretary of State, in which, as a magistrate and a deputy-lieutenant for three counties, he stated that either the Judge was not entitled to public confidence or he (Mr. Whalley) was not fit to be a magistrate.


thought the opportunity a fitting one to deal with this question, and he hoped a clause would be inserted in the Bill which would afford a distinct amelioration of the treatment of unconvicted prisoners under remand.


suggested that the hon. Member for Dudley should lay on the Table, in the form of a Schedule to the Bill, the regulations which he thought should be established for the treatment of unconvicted prisoners.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Back to