COMMITTEE. [Progress, 1st March.] (Hansard, 22 March 1877)

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
moved a Proviso, to the effect that persons on remand, or committed for trial, should be subjected to such restraint only as was necessary to secure their attendance.
Amendment proposed in page 8, at end of Clause, to add the words— (Persons on remand or committed for trial to be subject to such restraint only as is requisite to secure their attendance.) Provided always, That no person in cusdody, untried and unconvicted, charged with crime or misdemeanor, shall be subject to any restraint 336 in his personal liberty, other than may be necessary in cases of remand to secure his attendance before the magistrate by whom he is committed, and in cases of committal for trial to secure his attendance before the court by which he is to be tried; and no such person shall, previously to trial, be compelled to perform any menial office or duty in the gaol or place of detention in which he is detained, or be otherwise subjected to the discipline of such gaol or place of detention applicable to persons found guilty by the verdict of a jury:"—(Mr. H. B. Sheridan.) Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
hoped the Committee, would not accept the Amendment, because he did not think it would be right to tie the matter down so strictly as the hon. Member proposed to do. He (Mr. Cross) had endeavoured in an Amendment which he had placed on the Paper to Clause 35, to convey that there should be for the future a clear distinction between the treatment of prisoners awaiting their trial and that of those who had been convicted of crime. It would be the duty of the Secretary of State to draw up rules and regulations on the subject, and no alteration could be made in them without the sanction of Parliament.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
said, he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured, as far as he was concerned, to meet the objections which had been urged upon this important point. But the Amendment of which he had given Notice was similar to that proposed last year, to which hon. Members decidedly objected. What he believed the Committee expected and desired was that a clear distinction should be drawn between the innocent and guilty, and that the confusion which now prevailed upon that subject should be put an end to. Legislation only could cure the evil. Had the right hon. Gentleman any doubt as to the outrages which had been committed on untried men? Was it not the privilege of every Englishman to be deemed innocent till he was convicted? Why, then, did he object to legislation? Why was everything to be left in the hands of the Secretary of State? He might make rules and regulations, but nothing would be easier than to revoke them. The right hon. Gentleman in his new clause proposed that— There should be in force in every place in which prisoners are confined before trial special 337 rules regulating their confinement in such manner as to make it as little as possible oppressive, due regard only being had to their safe custody, to the maintenance of order and discipline in the place in which they are detained, and to the physical and moral well-being of the prisoners themselves. What was meant by regard being had to discipline? A case had occurred in which a prisoner, busily engaged in preparing his defence, had been required to make up his bed 20 times in one day to suit the caprice of a warder. The Committee of the Howard Association believed that untried prisoners ought not to be subject to the ordinary discipline of a prison. What was meant by the word "discipline" in the right hon. Gentleman's clause? Did he intend to perpetuate that treatment of untried prisoners of which complaints had been made? Were untried prisoners to be paraded before visitors? Were they to be compelled to study in a hundred ways how respect was to be paid to the governor? What was meant by having regard to the physical and moral well-being of a prisoner who was merely detained for safe custody? He might have only a day or two to prepare his defence, and he might require every hour of this time. Was he to be required to attend to his toilet to please the whims of a warder? What was meant by his moral well-being? Was he to be examined in theology? What the prisoner required was fair play and opportunity to see witnesses, solicitor, and counsel. The police would be examining his books and papers, and falsifying them. ["No, no."] These things were done, and he could sustain the assertion by evidence. Did the House forget the case that had occurred at Newgate, in which a gaoler insisted on knowing a prisoner's line of defence? The police were public prosecutors; there was an esprit de corps among them which led them to resort to any means to obtain information in order to secure convictions. It was not to be said that no injury could result from such espionage. It was the inalienable right of an untried prisoner to have his time free for the preparation of his defence, to see witnesses, and to enjoy every privilege consistent with safe detention, that was enjoyed by his accuser. When did the right hon. Gentleman propose to draw up his rules and what was to be their character? What rules could be drawn 338 up that would be inconsistent with the Amendment that he now proposed? Why could not the right hon. Gentleman say what he proposed to do? It was the duty of the Committee to resist the progress of the Bill until some consideration was paid to a question of this magnitude. The Bill took away the powers of justices, which were a present safeguard, and vested them practically in the Home Secretary. What larger power over personal liberty existed in Russia than resulted from vesting the treatment of untried prisoners in executive officers? When it was remembered that political prisoners would come within the range of the proposed rules, it would be seen that the question was worthy of attention. He could not accept the new clause of the right hon. Gentleman, and could not understand why he could not now define the mode of treatment of untried prisoners, or why he could not accept an Amendment which, in substance, had been approved by his Colleague the First Lord of the Admiralty at a meeting of the Howard Association. Although he did not wish to impede the Bill, he should feel bound to carry his Motion to a division.

§ MR. HUNT
said, the hon. Member must be under some misapprehension, as he did not remember ever attending any meeting of the Howard Association.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, lie did not think it necessary to put into the Bill all the rules that might be necessary before the trial of prisoners; but perhaps the Home Secretary could indicate the principles on which they would be framed, so that it would be known to what extent a less generous Secretary would be restrained, by formal regulations, in respect of the obligations to be imposed upon untried prisoners, for though nearly all were guilty a small percentage were innocent, and ought to be considered.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he thought he had made it clear on introducing the Bill that it was his intention to make a difference between tried and untried prisoners. The former debate in Committee showed that it was advisable that the House should have indication of what that difference was to be, and he had therefore put on the Paper a new clause to follow Clause 35, 339 of which the hon. Member would have given a fairer idea by quoting it in its entirety. It was as follows:— (Special rules as to treatment of unconvicted prisoners.) Whereas it is expedient that a clear difference should be made between the treatment of prisoners awaiting their trials and the treatment of prisoners who have been convicted of crime, and that, in order to secure the observance of such difference there should be in force in every place in which prisoners are confined before trial special rules regulating their confinement in such manner as to make it as little as possible oppressive, due regard only being had to their safe custody, to the maintenance of order and discipline in the place in which they are detained, and to the physical and moral well-being of the prisoners themselves: Therefore, Be it Enacted, That the Secretary of State shall, from time to time, make, and, when made, may repeal, alter, or add to special rules:—

(1.) With respect to the retention by a prisoner of the possession of any books, papers, or documents in his possession at the time of his arrest, and which may not be required for evidence against him, and are not reasonably suspected of forming part of property improperly acquired by him, or are not for some special reason required to be taken from him for the purposes of justice;

(2.) With respect to communications between a prisoner, his solicitor, and friends, so as to secure to such prisoner as unrestricted a communication between him, his solicitor, and his friends as may be possible, having regard only to the necessity of preventing any tampering with evidence, and any plans for escape, or other like consideration."

He did not think that any Secretary of State could be more bound than he would be by those provisions.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
wished to explain that the paper he read had been one of the printed publications of Howard Society, read two or three years ago at a meeting at Dudley House at which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Charles Adderley), the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Hunt), Colonel Crofton, and others had been present. It was then decided that a representation should be made to the Home Secretary in favour of an amelioration of the existing treatment of untried prisoners. They recommended that there should be greater facilities for cleaning their cells; more opportunities for communicating with their friends personally and by correspondence; more time for bodily exercise; and less restiction as to books and 340 newspapers, and an exemption from exhibition to visitors, and from being required to pay respect to officials in humiliating postures.

§ SIR WILLIAM FRASER
said, that though differing in politics from the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) he must say he fully agreed in a great deal that he had said. He thought there should be something more definite in the Bill than what was proposed by the Home Secretary. Some time ago it was the practice of the House of Detention at Clerkenwell to shut up in total darkness the untried prisoners, men who might be perfectly innocent, from 4 o'clock until 8 the next morning. That system went on as a matter of course for years, until partly through his instrumentality it was altered. At present an untried prisoner had no access to the documents that might be necessary for his defence; he would allow him to go to his own house, of course, in custody, and examine his books and paper.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
shared fully the views of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) with respect to the treatment of untried prisoners; but he thought his Amendment would be ineffectual to secure the object at which he aimed. The prison regulations ought to be dealt with as a whole; but the Amendment of the hon. Member touched only on a portion of them. According to his proposal no discretion was to be left to the Governor, who, if he found a loaded pistol with a prisoner, could not take it from him without running the risk of being subjected to an action.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
observed that by his Amendment everything might be taken from a prisoner in the discretion of the Committee of Magistrates.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
said, in the interests of the prisoner he had a very strong objection to one of the hon. Member's proposals—namely, that the prisoner's counsel and attorney were to have access to the prisoner's money at all times.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the proposal was not at present before the Committee.

§ MR. O'SULLIVAN
said, that the law of Ireland, like that of England, was that a man was, supposed to be innocent until he was found guilty. The practice in Ireland, however, was quite different, for 341 the moment a man was committed by a magistrate, it was taken as granted he was sure to be guilty. He would give the Committee an instance of how untried prisoners were treated in Ireland, and in order to prevent the recurrence of such things he proposed to add to the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Sheridan) words which would include within the operation of that Amendment, prisoners "in custody under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act." It was the more necessary to do this because the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was sometimes passed very quickly in that House. Times were very quiet at present; but no one knew when the Act might be suspended, and it might be the fate of any hon. Member to find himself affected by it. He would give them an instance of the way in which a political prisoner was treated when the Government authorities had not the courage to charge him with any offence. He was arrested under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act—[Laughter]—he was kept for 15 days in solitary confinement before he was allowed to see his solicitor or counsel; he was kept for 30 days before he was allowed to communicate with his people, although he had at that time 50 men in his employ; he was kept 120 days before he was allowed to see any member of his own family, and during those four months the Government never brought the slightest charge against him. He was allowed to see his family only once a-week, and then in the presence of a warder, and three of them only were permitted to visit him at the same time. He well remembered once, when three of his family came to see him, his daughter a girl of 13 years of age, was kept outside the prison gate because she would make the fourth. At the same time, while he and others similarly arrested were treated with such barbarity, the convicted prisoners were allowed to take several hours' exercise in the yard and to speak to one another, while the political prisoners were only allowed to have one and three-quarter hour's exercise, were obliged to walk in single file, and not permitted to speak. He well remembered a warder calling to him on one occasion—"Sullivan, stand out of the ring." [Laughter.] He said to the man—"When you address me remember my name is O'Sullivan, not Sullivan." [Laughter.] The warder 342 called him to order then and there, and demanded his right to dictate to him what he should call him. He replied—"I don't mind what you say, but I ask you to call me by my proper name when you address me." The Governor of the prison then came up, and gave him 48 hours' solitary confinement for daring to speak to the warder. In fact, untried prisoners in Ireland were treated far worse than convicted housebreakers or pickpockets, particularly if they were in custody for political offences or agrarian outrages. The hon. Member concluded by moving an addition to the Amendment after the word "misdemeanour,"—"or in custody under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act."

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he did not understand the hilarity of his hon. Friends during the statement of the hon. Member for Limerick. A gentleman who had become a Member of that House had been incarcerated, and was now able to inform the Committee of his own experience in prison. He confessed he did not think that was a subject for joking; and he thought it would have a grave effect in Ireland if it was said that the House of Commons jeered at an hon. Member, who had been committed to prison on suspicion of a political offence, when he stated facts to show how necessary it was observe great caution in dealing with this subject. In dealing with unconvicted persons they were dealing with the essential rights of every subject of the Queen. With regard to the Motion before the House he sympathized with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan). He had from the first looked on this Bill with the greatest suspicion, inasmuch as it was founded on the supposition that all untried prisoners and prisoners convicted of slight offences ought to be treated on a system uniform with the treatment of the worst convicts. The idea pervaded the whole of the Bill. Nor was be less suspicious of its constitutional effect. The 42nd clause, for example, concluded as follows:—"All enactments inconsistent with this Act, or with any such rules made there under are hereby repealed." That literally gave the Secretary of State power to repeal all statutes inconsistent with his rules. That was a most faulty principle. A former Home Secretary (Sir George Grey) promised him, and kept his promise, 343 to introduce the rules as a Schedule to the Act of 1865, and he was glad the hon. Member for Dudley was making a struggle for the constitutional principle Sir George Grey felt bound to introduce into his Act.

§ MR. HUNT
explained that he found he had been present in 1873 at a meeting of justices at Dudley House, at which Papers were distributed containing the words which the hon. Member for Dudley had quoted.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
understood that the papers in question had been adopted by the meeting.

§ MR. HUNT
No.

MR. SULLIVAN
said, that hon. Members on that side of the House owed their hearty thanks to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). He had shown them on that occasion that he had risen superior to all prejudices and had taken a broad and constitutional view of the subject before the Committee. It would be lamentable if it could be said in Ireland that the sufferings of Irish political prisioners were treated with levity by the House of Commons; but he did not think the good-humoured laughter in which some hon. Members had just indulged could be so understood. Still, he asked the Committee to go still deeper into the subject, and consider well the statement laid before it by his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan). If his name were Poerio, or if it were set forth under the guise of a Neapolitan story that a man of position in his own county, in his own rank of life, one of the most respected men in the Province of Munster, was arrested, put in prison, no charge brought against him, never brought face to face with his accusers from the first day to the last, for 15 days allowed to lie in that prison, subjected to treatment severer than that applied in English prisons to convicted felons—if that story were told of a Neapolitan prison, what would they think of it? He asked the Committee to feel, not for his hon. Friend, who was now beyond the reach of any such barbarity, but for other innocent men who might be subjected to such treatment; and to declare that such conduct should not be permitted in future. He would state what his hon. Friend had shrunk from telling them, that during the month when legal advice was denied to him he 344 was obliged to sleep in bedding repulsive to decency. That was the case of an untried prisoner in Ireland. He believed it was the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) who said that nearly all the Irish Members had been in prison at one time or another. He should give them the practical experience of another Irish State prisoner. He (Mr. Sullivan) was put up as a misdemeanant for political writing. When O'Connell and other State prisoners were imprisoned in Richmond Gaol in Dublin they were simple misdemeanants. They could see their family and friends at all reasonable hours, supply their own food, their own table linen, their own bedding, and, in fact, were only kept in severe detention, but subjected to no humiliation. Now, between O'Connell's imprisonment and his imprisonment as a misdemeanant, a Bill, like that before the Committee, passed through Parliament, and for want of some vigilant Member like the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) calling attention to the point now under discussion a serious change in the law was made. Under the new law he found himself classed with the vilest herd of criminals in Richmond Prison, forbidden to see his wife and little child for a long period, but, for an exception to which he would presently refer, exempted only from eating the coarse food of the gaol, because his health rendered it necessary that he should receive hospital diet, just as any other prisoner would be exempted in similar circumstances. His mother came to see him once during the 100 days he was in confinement, and had to see him through a barred window in the presence of a warder, and he then said she should come to see him no more. How was his prison treatment modified? He felt bound to pay a tribute of grateful regret to the memory of a man, a statesman, now no more, the late Lord Mayo—kindly, generous, broad-minded—and amongst the many who wept for his tragic end no man in all broad Britain paid an honester tribute of sorrow over his grave than he did. He saw in his prison cell the letters of Lord Mayo complaining that the Act of Parliament, which had been passed through the House of Commons without sufficient attention being paid to the details, left him, as Chief Secretary for Ireland, powerless to mitigate many of the severities of 345 his lot. He had good reason to believe, also, that the then Viceroy, the Duke of Abercorn, was equally anxious, if possible, that he should be spared from the humiliations and privations of his prison life; but the Act of Parliament had tied their hands and left them no power to interfere with the rules of the prison, till at last the matter was brought before the notice of that House. More than ever was it necessary to be watchful now with regard to this subject, because they were about to centralize into one hand the whole prison management of the country. The visiting justices throughout England might have their faults—and he blamed the action of some of them in respect to the appointment of chaplains; but for the sake of constitutional principle he would prefer the errors of visiting justices, even though opposed to his own feelings, rather than see the centralizing system carried out to so great an extent. If they could have the assurance that the kindly feelings animating the Home Secretary would be perpetuated in his successors there would be but little difficulty about the matter. But they ought to take a warning from the experience of the past, and seek—it might be requiring that the regulations for the treatment of prisoners should every Session be submitted to the House—to prevent the recurrence of undue hardship in the future.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, they had already by statute the power of making regulations for prisons, and the present Bill did not propose to go further than the law as it now stood. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) said he assented to the Bill of 1865, because the rules proposed to be made under it were in the Schedule. The 21st clause gave power to make regulations with respect to the arrangement of prisons, and such rules were as binding as if they formed a portion of the Bill. In this respect it was the same as the Act of 1865, and the provision was really copied from it. He would, however, go further, and state that no rule would be passed by him under this Bill, or brought into operation, until it was first laid on the Table of the House. That course was, he believed, much better than any Amendment proposed, and he hoped, therefore, the discussion would not be continued, 346 nor any further time of the Committee wasted.

§ MR. WHITBREAD,
remarking that the injustice of subjecting untried prisoners of a certain class to inconvenience and even cruelty had already been sufficiently discussed, wished to draw attention to another point—namely, the position of the poorer and more illiterate class of prisoners. In the Bill of last year the Home Secretary bound himself to maintain a prison in every county; but that clause did not appear in the present Bill. The gain of getting rid of small prisons would be very costly, since a poor or illiterate man might be detained in a gaol, far away from his friends and his witnesses, on whom alone he could rely for assistance on his trial. He trusted that their case would be taken into consideration by the Committee in dealing with the clause under discussion, which, however, he thought, might very fairly be withdrawn, if the Home Secretary would undertake to bring this matter up on the Report with the view of giving effect to the principle he had been asked to carry out.

§ MR. HERMON
recommended that the hon. Member for Dudley should withdraw his amending clause, with a view to the principle which it embodied being given effect to in a modified form which would secure more general support.

§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT
said, it was painful to think of the number of persons in this country who were subject to the grievance of being confined in prison for many months before their trial took place. He believed that if it were inquired into it would be found that thousands were subjected annually to this degradation who were afterwards found to be innocent of the charges brought against them. It was a scandal to think that, notwithstanding the existence of the most expensive judicial establishment in the world, persons were detained in prison from July to December, when the winter assizes commenced. That was a great grievance, and it was a greater anomaly that their Judges could not be got to deliver the gaols of this country between July and Christmas. He trusted that, whatever might be said for or against the proposals of the hon. Member for Dudley, the Home Secretary would introduce into the Bill some clause founded on the assumption that an untried prisoner should not be sub- 347 jected to such penalties as those to which reference had been made in the course of this discussion.

§ MR. HENLEY
thought it would be much better that rules should be made by the Secretary of State under the authority of the statute, and then if they were found inconvenient they could easily be amended; whereas if the rules were embodied in the Bill all the inconveniences which might arise under them would be perpetrated until they were repealed by Parliament. By the proposals of the hon. Member for Dudley, persons in custody might have an unlimited amount of money in their possession, and free access to them between 10 and 4 o'clock would also be given to any number of people who might be called relations or witnesses. These people were to have unrestricted private communications with the prisoners. In those circumstances, in times of excitement the relatives and witnesses, with the command of all that money, would easily find the means of kicking up such a row outside the prison as would make it impossible to maintain the discipline necessary for the safe custody of the prisoners.

§ MR. PEASE
said, he inferred that the Home Secretary was prepared to accept the Amendment which he (Mr. Pease) had on the Paper, and that of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), which went still further; also that no rules under the Bill were to come into force until they were laid on the Table of the House. If that was so, there was very little difference between the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan). He quite agreed, however, with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that the object in view would be better attained by the rules, and trusted that the hon. Member for Dudley, having gained these assurances from the Home Secretary, would not go to a division on the subject.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
urged that, as the Secretary of State was, under that Bill, to be the whole regulating power of the prisons of this country, that right hon. Gentleman must have considered what the general rules for regulating prisons ought to be and must have them in his mind. If so, he could put those rules upon paper, and he ought to place them before the House, in order that hon. 348 Members might determine whether in their opinion the principles they contained were right or wrong. If right, they could then be placed in the Schedule for the guidance of succeeding Home Secretaries.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that although he might have in his own mind a general notion of what the rules ought to be, it was rather too much to ask that he should now lay them before Parliament, before he had had the advice and assistance of the Prison Commissioners who were to be specially appointed. He had already stated that he would undertake that the rules should be laid on the Table of the House before that Bill came into operation. Every rule that was made or altered would be laid on the Table. That was as far as he could possibly go.

MR. J. COWEN
entirely concurred with the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) with respect to the severities used in prison towards untried prisoners. His friend, the late Mr. Ernest Jones, was compelled to assort with burglars, thieves, and murderers, and if not for the influence of his friends in that House must have died from the severity of his treatment. He had no objection to the rules, but he did complain of the way in which they were put in force. Policemen had no doubt a difficult duty to discharge; but he would appeal to any hon. Member whether they did not usually act towards their prisoner as if he were a guilty person, and use every effort to get him convicted. He therefore thought that there should be something stronger than the rules proposed by the Home Secretary. They had had experience of those rules already, which had not been a favourable one. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) alluded to the thousands of persons detained in the prisons of this country for months before brought to trial. He (Mr. Cowen) held in his hand a document which proved that from January to July, 1876, 12,000 persons were waiting to be tried, which was, he considered, a great grievance.

§ MR. GREGORY
said, the advantage of dealing with this matter in the way proposed by the Home Secretary was that the rules which he would make could be adapted to the different cases that might arise.

§ Mr. WALTER
said, he was afraid that whatever they did they could never make the practice in this matter quite square with the theory, the theory being that every person was presumed to be innocent till he was proved to be guilty. But they could do something, and they ought to do something. In the opinion of the Governor of Reading Gaol they ought to do something towards mitigating this confinement, and he (Mr. Walter) thought the rules which his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposed to lay before the Committee should have particular reference to these four points—first, the mode of confinement; second, diet; third, the amount of exercise; and fourth, the access of the friends of untried prisoners. He believed the county gaol of Reading was one of the best ordered gaols in the country. It was one of the model gaols built some 25 years ago, when attention was first drawn to this subject. The difficulty was that in all gaols there was no distinction between the cell of a prisoner who was awaiting trial and the cell of a convicted prisoner. He thought something might be done to obviate the idea that the cell in which an untried prisoner was detained was a criminal cell. In Reading Gaol any prisoner before trial who could afford it might have food supplied to him by his friends. The scale of diet allowed to untried prisoners was the highest scale allowed to convicted prisoners. He suggested to the Governor of that prison whether it would not be well if for untried prisoners such a common-place thing as tea or coffee were provided instead of gruel. The Governor said that would be a reasonable improvement. With regard to exercise the case was this—every prisoner before trial had four hours' exercise in the day. He was not required to do any work, but if he wished to work for his own improvement he was allowed to do so. There was a rule for facilitating all reasonable access of his legal advisers. With regard to access of his relations or friends, there had been a question whether or not a grille should be interposed between the prisoner and them. That was a precautionary matter; but he (Mr. Walter) thought some relaxation should be made in the case of a man's wife or children wishing to see him. He merely called the attention of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to these 350 points, because they were entirely matter of detail. Whether or not the rules which his right hon. Friend would make would be adequate would depend upon the intimate knowledge he had of these matters.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that it was much to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary should have failed, as he had pleaded, to consult those whom he must know as the future Prison Commissioners, with respect to the Rules, which were to have such potent effect under this Bill, seeing that he had had this Bill long under consideration, having introduced its counterpart last Session. He (Mr. Newdegate) was surprised at an observation the Home Secretary had made in reply to his former observations; in seeking to justify the power sought for himself under this Bill, he had referred to the fact that visiting justices could make rules under the existing Act, but he omitted all mention of the fact that the visiting justices were a delegation of the quarter sessions, to which court they were responsible, and further, that all the notes they made were subject to the revision of the Secretary of State. But who was to revise what the Secretary of State had done? This Bill proposed to group prisons and to remove prisoners to a great distance from their habitations and their friends. Therefore the Committee was doubly bound to guard the interests of these untried men.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
said, that when this question was last before the House, it was adjourned to give the Home Secretary time to prepare the necessary rules. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS intimated his dissent from that statement.] He did not desire to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but the Committee understood that it was the intention of the Government to frame rules. Why would not the right hon. Gentleman say what part of these Amendments he proposed to accept. These Amendments were not mere crude proposals, because they had been prepared with great care by Equity and Common Law counsel, and had been submitted to, and approved by, more than one Secretary of State. Indeed, they were far from being as crude in form as was the Amendment placed upon the Notice Paper by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

§ DR. KENEALY
said, he had no desire to apply to that House the expression of a great poet of the last century, to the effect that "Wretches hang, that jurymen may dine," and therefore he must beg the Committee to listen to a very few arguments in support of the great principle embodied in the Amendment. Hon. Members had wandered far away from the Amendment which was really before the Committee, and had been discussing a number of prison rules with which they had nothing to do at that particular moment. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) simply amounted to a declaration of the existing law of England, which was that every man should be deemed innocent until he had been proved to be guilty. No untried prisoner ought to be subjected to any restraint beyond that necessary to secure his attendance at his trial, or to any menial or disgraceful work. He could not see why the Home Secretary should not accept the Amendment, embodying as it did the principle of perfect right and justice.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there was a great difference between an important principle and a mere rule of practice adopted in different gaols. The Amendment involved the great principle that no man should be subjected to any inconvenience beyond the mere restraint of his liberty, or compelled to perform any menial office until he had been convicted of a breach of the law. That, as the hon. Member for Stoke (Dr. Kenealy) had said, was a great principle which was recognized by the law of England. It was not always carried into effect, as he need not tell hon. Members who were acquainted with the duties of magistrates. Even in Middlesex, untried prisoners had been subject to great inconveniences. If this great principle had been always adopted in practice, those things which horrified the House and the country, and which had been described by two hon. Members from Ireland, would not have occurred. He appealed to the Home Secretary to accept the principle of the Amendment, and then bring in his own rule or regulation, which he had no doubt would be framed in accordance with any assurance he might give the House. It was a wholesome thing, in his opinion, that 352 the House of Commons should affirm the principle that no prisoner untried should be subjected to any unnecessary hardship. Indeed, he did not think that such a principle needed discussion. It was one that any Government should receive with open arms, and the Home Secretary would be doing honour to himself and the House by accepting it without further discussion.

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON,
who had also placed an Amendment upon the subject upon the Paper, observed that some of the statements that had been made tonight must have brought a blush of shame to the cheek of every Englishman. The eyes of the country would now be open to what was going on in our prisons under what we fancied was a humane and civilized system of prison discipline. Believing that the Amendment would meet that state of things he should give it his support.

MR. GOLDSMID
objected to power being conferred upon Home Secretaries, no matter how much they were trusted by the country, or how properly such trust might be reposed in them, to repeal Acts of Parliament by rules which they might choose to lay down. If rules in relation to management of prisons were to be laid down, let them be included in a Schedule to the Bill, with the understanding that they should at no time be altered without having been first submitted to Parliament.

§ MR. PARNELL
pointed out that neither of the two Amendments under consideration, either that of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), or the new one proposed by the Home Secretary, governed the case of those prisoners not accused of any offence whatever, but arrested and held in prison under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, as was the fate of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan). He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he meant deliberately to except those prisoners from those rules or regulations to be adopted? Were there not only unconvicted, but unaccused persons to be excepted? The hon. Member for Limerick had given an account of his sufferings while in prison, and he was sorry to say he met in some instances with laughter. ["No, no!"] He was willing to believe the laughter arose from no ill-feeling or desire to evade the question to which his description was directed. 353 It was important the Committee should know what the experience of a prisoner in such a case was, and, with the permission of the Committee, he would read a few extracts from a speech of the late Mr. G. H. Moore, Member for Mayo, when he applied for a Select Committee to inquire into the treatment of untried prisoners. Mr. Moore, in quoting Mr. O'Sullivan's experience, said— He was arrested on the 5th of March, 1867, taken twenty-one miles to Kilmallock the same night, taken before a magistrate, and was sent to prison as a Fenian agent. Five days after he had been arrested the governor of the prison informed him that he had received the Lord Lieutenant's warrant for his detention. He was not allowed to write to his wife, or to write to anyone of the nine firms for whom he did business, though he represented that the ruin of his business would follow from his not being able to write to his employers. On the night of his arrest he was put into a bed the sheets of which were black with dirt, but when he complained of the dirt he was told that the sheets could not be dirty, because the last man who slept in them had only committed an assault. He asked to be allowed to wear his trousers during the night, but was refused, and stripped naked to search him, and his clothes, with the exception of his shirt, were thrown outside the cell. He could not sleep in consequence of the thinness of his covering, and had to get out of his bed during the night with cramps. [Laughter.] He (Mr. Moore) did not see what there was in this description to excite laughter. The warder called the petitioner Sullivan,' and when he said there was an O' to his name, the warder asked him how dare he dictate to him, and ordered him into his cell, and the governor deprived the petitioner of that day's exercise."—[3 Hansard, cxcvi. 1161–1162.] There were other details of the same character, and he thought if there was one thing upon which the Committee should deliberate, it was such treatment as this of untried prisoners. There was no more painful part of a magistrate's duty than the remanding a prisoner to such treatment. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would accept the proposal and avoid the necessity of a division.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not force a division without saying something respecting the principle involved in the Amendment. If an alteration of the wording of it would meet the objections of the right hon. Gentleman he would consent to such alteration. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the principle of the Amendment. Unless he did, he (Mr. Sheridan) would exhaust all the Forms of the House in opposing the passing of the measure.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman accepted fully the two principles contained in the Amendment—that a prisoner should be detained merely and not subjected to hardship, and that he should not be required to perform menial offices.

MR. SULLIVAN
said, the hon. Member by his side (Mr. Sheridan) was ready to withdraw his Amendment if he received a simple assurance from the right hon. Gentleman upon this point—not that there should be a difference of treatment, that would not be satisfactory—but that the principle governing the detention of untried prisoners should be that merely of keeping them in safe custody.

ASSHETON CROSS,
did not think he could give a much stronger expression of opinion than he had done already—namely, that it was expedient a clear difference should be made between the treatment of prisoners awaiting their trial and the treatment of prisoners convicted for crime. In order to secure the observance of such difference rules should be drawn up regulating the detention of prisoners awaiting trial so as to make it as little oppressive as possible "due regard only being had to their safe custody and the maintenance of order in the prisons and the physical well-being of the prisoners."

§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE
thought that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) would do himself great injustice by not accepting the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. It would be quite open to him, if he had occasion to do so, to object to the rules to be framed under the clause.

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON
observed that the recital to the clause did not carry out the object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view. If he would consent to add to another section words embodying the principle of the Amendment, he believed that such a course would be satisfactory.

§ MR. MACDONALD
considered that it would be most objectionable to place in the hands of the Secretary of State the power of making special rules.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
observed that the House would have a control over the rules, inasmuch as they must be laid on the Table before the Act came into operation.

MR. SULLIVAN
said, that the words "maintaining order and discipline" were full of danger, and under them the very hardships of which they complained might be inflicted.

§ SIR EARDLEY WILMOT,
having carefully examined the Amendment, felt bound to give it his support.

§ MR. MELDON
also supported the Amendment, remarking that if it should be rejected, the Bill would very probably undergo a series of obstructions, which would be most disagreeable to the Government.
Amendment (Mr. O' Sullivan) agreed to.
Question put, That the words 'Provided always, That no person in custody, untried and unconvicted, charged with crime or misdemeanor, or in custody in consequence of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, shall be subject to any restraint in his personal liberty, other than may be necessary in cases of remand to secure his attendance before the magistrate by whom he is committed, and in cases of committal for trial to secure his attendance before the court by which he is to be tried; and no such person shall, previously to trial, be compelled to perform any menial office or duty in the gaol or place of detention in which he is detained, or be otherwise subjected to the discipline of such gaol or place of detention applicable to persons found guilty by the verdict of a jury,' be there added. The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 145: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 42.)

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
moved in page 8, at end, add— Such persons to retain possession of money, papers, &c., under their control at the time of their arrest, unless same constitute evidence of the charge.) Provided also, That every person charged with crime or misdemeanor shall be allowed to retain possession of any money, property, books, papers, or documents in his possession or under his control at the time of his arrest; unless such money, property, books, papers, or documents shall, in the opinion of the magistrate by whom he is remanded or committed, constitute evidence necessary for the complete investigation or trial of the charge brought against him; and in the event of the committing magistrate being of opinion that such money, property, books, papers, or documents do constitute such necessary evidence, the same shall in cities and boroughs be placed in the possession or under the control of the superintendent of police appointed for the district, and in counties in the possession or under the control of the chief constable appointed for the county or division in which the person charged resided at the time he was arrested, or in which he was arrested.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
explained that under the Act of 1865 a prisoner on entering the gaol was deprived of all valuables found upon his person. The gaoler took charge of them and restored them when he was dismissed from custody. It would be altogether inconsistent to allow a prisoner to keep in his possession money which ho might use in bribing the warders. He quite agreed in the object of the hon. Member for Dudley, but he thought it could be better attained by rules than by enactment in the Bill.

MR. GOLDSMID
suggested the propriety of each prisoner being supplied with a copy of the rules on entering prison, because it frequently happened that warders made their own rules; or, if that could not be done, then that a complete copy should be hung up in each cell.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he agreed with the suggestion of the hon. Member.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
said, that the rules which the Home Secretary had placed upon the Paper were quite as definite as could reasonably be expected, and he therefore could not support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dudley.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that prisoners should be allowed to state to their relatives how they were treated.

§ DR. KENEALY
reminded the Home Secretary that if police or prison officials disappeared with money or valuable property belonging to the person taken into custody, the latter had no redress against the Treasury, or against anybody. He suggested that when a prisoner was apprehended, his money and valuables should be immediately remitted to the office of the magistrate, who should be left to deal with them at his discretion.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
doubted whether it would be expedient to pass such a clause, because it would be difficult to know what articles in the prisoner's possession might turn out to be material for the purpose of bringing the offence home. He thought it would be best, on the whole, to leave a discretion in the hands of magistrates.

§ MR. MACDONALD
supported the Amendment. He said the present mode of treating those that were merely changed with an offence was disgraceful. They were called upon to submit to all 357 manner of indignities that took from them their self-respect, and made them almost begin a career of crime. He mentioned a case in which £50 was taken from a man who was apprehended, but turned out afterwards to be innocent, and within a few days this man's wife and children had to go to the relieving officer. He thought some provision should be made for supplying money to prisoners families.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, so far as property was concerned, he thought that must be dealt with by a separate Bill, probably in the Summary Jurisdiction Bill. The Committee was now dealing only with property which a man brought into gaol with him, and that was taken by the gaoler under the Act of 1865. If the prisoner were to request that the money he had brought with him should be sent to his family it would be done.

§ DR. KENEALY
said, he had never known an instance in which the gaoler would incur the responsibilty of parting with the money he might have taken from the prisoner.

MR. GOLDSMID
advised the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, as he thought the Home Secretary had already conceded as much as could with safety be expected of him. He suggested that a list of the property found upon a prisoner should be taken upon his arrest and that a copy of the list should be given to the prisoner.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
was disposed to accept the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but he wanted to know what was to be done with reference to the man's books and papers.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that that was already provided, and he added that by the law as it stood at present an abstract of the rules was to be posted in each cell, and the gaoler was to read, or cause them to be read, within 24 hours. The visiting justices would hear the complaints of prisoners. In regard to the question of books and papers, he admitted it to be worthy of further consideration, and it should have his attention.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that the prisoners distrusted the visiting justices, who in turn distrusted the prisoners. He thought that the Amendment should be carried, and he should certainly vote for it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
then moved the following Proviso:— (The counsel of such persons to have free access to them at all times.) Provided also, That the counsel and attorney of every person in custody charged with crime or misdemeanor shall have free access to such person at all times, and the relations and all persons who may be required as witnesses for the defence of the person charged shall be entitled to see him at any time between ten in the morning and four in the afternoon. All interviews between the counsel, attorney, relations, and immediate friends of the person charged and such person shall, except in cases of felony, if he or they require it, be strictly private, and the privacy of such interviews shall not upon any pretence whatever be interfered with.'

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, but would accept in its place that which he himself had given Notice of upon Clause 35, where it was provided that the Secretary of State should have power to make special rules regulating the communications between a prisoner, his solicitor, and friends.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill,"

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
asked through what agency prisoners were to be traced when their place of imprisonment was not known? In case of convicts they knew of but one agency by which that could be accomplished, but in gaols there was no corresponding agency. Were the clerks of the peace or the clerks of assizes to undertake the duty.

§ MR. WHITBREAD
recommended the establishment of places of detention for untried prisoners.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
suggested that funds for the purpose might be got out of charitable bequests left for poor prisoners.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
held that houses of detention would necessarily be prisons, and worked by prison authorities.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the Bill proposed that there should be a gaol in each county unless the Secretary of State gave satisfactory reasons to Parliament for leaving the county without; but in some cases the gaol of another county would be nearer a prisoner's home and friends and more convenient of access; and in that case a prisoner might be sent to such gaol: 359 and when a man was removed out of his county it was intended that his friends should be informed where he was confined and where he would be tried. A record would be kept both at the gaol from which a prisoner was removed and at that to which he was taken, and information about him would be obtainable at both. Care would certainly be taken that untried prisoners were placed in no worse position than they were in at present as regarded detention and trial at a distance from their homes and friends; and it might be desirable in some cases to provide houses of detention which would be less costly than gaols, because the same staff would not be required for them. Bequests for debtors or prisoners would continue to be administered in accordance with the terms of the bequests; certainly the Bill would not vest them in the Home Secretary.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 21 (Confinement of prisoners after conviction) agreed to.
Clause 22 (Confinement of debtors and prisoners who are not criminal prisoners) agreed to.
Clause 23 (Saving as to commitment of prisoners) agreed to.
Clause 24 (Legal custody of prisoner).

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
moved that no untried prisoner shall be retained in gaol for a longer period than three months, and that if ho be not then brought to trial he shall be discharged unless an application be made to the High Court of Justice for an order for his detention on the ground that from want of the necessary evidence it was impossible to bring him to trial sooner. Innocent persons had sometimes been exposed for 10 months to the intolerable hardships of prison life.

THE CHAIRMAN
thought the Amendment was not germane to the clause, and that, if it came within the four corners of the Bill, it must be moved as a new clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 25 (Allowance to discharged prisoners).

§ MR. SAMPSON LLOYD
moved, in page 9, line 30, after "Commissioners," 360 to insert "on the recommendation of the visiting committee," his object being that the visiting justices should have an interest in the distribution of the funds which were granted to prisoners on their discharge.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he wished that the justices should still take an interest in this matter, and suggested that instead of the Amendment proposed, the words should be "upon the recommendation of the visiting committee or otherwise."
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

§ SIR JOHN KENNAWAY
moved, in page 9, line 31, after "or," to leave out to end of Clause, and insert— may order a like amount to be paid to the treasurer of a certified Prisoners' Aid Society on the gaoler receiving from such society a certificate in writing, signed by the secretary thereof, that the same has been applied by the society for the benefit of the prisoner; and he contended that that course would be much better than that proposed in the Bill, and submitted that it was now adopted in regard to convicts' gratuities.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
did not think that the Amendment would conduce to the good working of the Prisoners' Aid Society, and contended that the State must have a control over the money spent.

§ MR. CHILDERS
asked, whether it was wise to give these payments statutory effect, and suggested that the Government should deal with them like all others, and ask the House for a Vote in Committee of Supply.

§ MR. WHITBREAD
supported the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet (Sir John Kennaway).

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
believed that under the clause in its present shape the visiting committees would come to some understanding by which the grants would be applied tolerably equally all over the country; whereas if the Amendment were adopted there would be very great diversity in regard to the amount of money given in different localities.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SPENCER STANHOPE
moved, in page 9, line 32, after "society," to insert "or refuge." There were many of these refuges which were doing good 361 work, and which could not be self-supporting.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS,
in assenting to the Amendment, said that, provided the institution was certified under the Act, he did not care what name it went by.
Amendment agreed to.

§ MR. ASSHETON
moved, in page 9, line 34, at end, add— and in addition thereto the Prisons Commissioners may further provide any prisoner with the means of returning to his home or place of settlement by causing his fare to be paid by railway, or in any other convenient manner.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, it was unnecessary to insert the Amendment, as the proposal involved in it was already the law.

§ MR. ASSHETON
moved, in page 10, line 35, to leave out from "provided" to "order," in line 37, inclusive.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, lie should have two important matters to attend to in the working of this Bill. The first was the question of expense, and the next was the question of the prisoners themselves. The fewer the gaols were, the more cheaply could the Bill be worked. But, on the other hand, he was sure he should be inflicting a grievous hardship on a great number of people, especially those who were waiting for trial and those who were in custody for debt, if ho took them a very long way from their homes and also incurred considerable expense in sending them back again. Therefore, on the whole, having considered the matter very carefully, he thought it was wise to 362 put in the Bill a provision that there should be prisons, generally speaking, in every county. There would be prisons and prisons. In many counties the prisons would be places simply for the detention of prisoners awaiting trial. Such prisons would not require the usual staff of officials.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he foresaw from the beginning that the Bill would not be worked with the economy with which it was said it would be worked. There could be no doubt that prisoners who had been tried and sentenced to a few days' imprisonment with or without hard labour, would be sent to those prisons which the Home Secretary described as mere places for the detention of prisoners awaiting trial, and that would involve the necessity of providing the usual staff of prison officials.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. WHITWELL
moved, in page 10, line 37, after "his order," to insert— made after a vote in favour of the discontinuance of such prison has been passed in quarter sessions by a majority of the magistrates for such county then present. The clause involved a financial difficulty, upon which the justices ought to be allowed to negotiate with the Home Secretary.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
explained that the difficulty had no real existence.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 30 (Effect of discontinuance of prison.)

§ MR. FRESHFIELD
said, this clause allowed prison authorities to redeem prisons on the payment of a sum of money within a period of three months. He thought this period should be extended at the discretion of the Home Secretary, and therefore moved, in page 11, line 4, to leave out "three months," and insert "a period not less than six months, to be prescribed by the Secretary of State."
Amendment agreed to.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
moved, in page 11, line 10, after "Act," insert— and on repayment by such authority of any compensation it may have received out of 363 moneys provided by Parliament in respect of its having provided a prison of its own more than adequate for the accommodation of the prisoners belonging to such authority. Amendment agreed to.

MR. PAGET
moved, in page 11, line 37, after "authority," to insert— then any such other prison or prisons belonging to such authority shall either be re-conveyed to such authority to sell or dispose of as they shall think fit, or, if such prison or prisons be continued by order of the Secretary of State, then shall be paid by the Treasury to such authority a sum equal to one hundred and twenty pounds in respect of each certified cell in any such prison or prisons so continued. He maintained that if the second gaol were maintained for Imperial purposes, it ought to be paid for by the State.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the county gaols were too large for present purposes, but if they had been erected with a view to the probable increase of the criminal population the Treasury would pay at the rate named; but if they were not constructed with that view, but were only sufficient for present purposes, the Treasury would not pay for them.

MR. PAGET
stated that was no concession at all. It might do very well in districts where there was an increasing population; whereas where the population was almost stagnant, many of the gaols would simply be discontinued.

§ MR. FRESHFIELD
moved, in page 13, line 28, to leave out "after the expiration of one year after the commencement of this Act."
Amendment agreed to.

§ EARL PERCY
moved, in page 13, to leave out line 39 and insert "in respect of which payment has been made out of 364 rates and." In a case known to him, where the Governor of a gaol had been appointed after many years' service in the police, the gaol might be abolished and the Governor would receive little or no compensation under the clause. His view was that now that these officers were about to be transferred to the State they ought to receive greater consideration than those who would be appointed by the Imperial Government for the first time.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
was afraid that in the interest of the ratepayers he could not accept the Amendment.

§ EARL PERCY
said, he would withdraw his Amendment and bring it up again on the Report.

§ MR. SAMUDA
called attention to the hardship that would be inflicted on superannuated officers of prisons if the clause remained in its present state. He asked that they should be allowed to remain on the same footing as existed at present.

§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOT
moved the omission of the latter part of the clause, which proposed that the annuity granted to prison officers should be apportioned between the period of service before and after the passing of the Act, that portion of the allowance payable for service before the passing of the Act to be paid by the local authorities of the prison where the officer was serving at the commencement of the Act. He thought it would be very dangerous to place at the disposal of one man such a large amount of patronage as the Home Secretary would possess supposing the clause to pass in its present shape. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the visiting justices had done their duty with respect to the selection of officers of gaols, and he now proposed that one year after he had taken the gaols into his hands it should be in his power to say who amongst those Governors and other officers he would retain. Every one of the officers of the gaols might be thrown on the rates of the county by the arbitrary power of the Secretary of State. That was not a power which should be entrusted to any man.
Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 1, to leave out from the word "any," to the end of the Clause.—(Sir Walter Barttelot.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
could not accept the Amendment. There had been a very great number of very excellent officers who had served the country for a great number of years. Because the Secretary of State was to take over all the gaols at a given date, it would not be fair to take the whole burden of pensioning men, who had for perhaps 30 years served the county, from the county and throw it upon the Treasury. If a certain number of gaols were struck off a certain number of gaolers must be struck off also; but there was not the slightest desire to get rid of these men, and he would offer every inducement to the best men to remain in the service as long as possible.

§ MR. FRESHFIELD
moved, as a counter Amendment, that certain words should be left out of the same section of the same clause which related to the apportionment of the superannuation allowance or gratuity between the period of service before and the period of service after the Act. The effect of the Amendment would be to remove the scale fixed by the Bill, according to which the annuity should be divided between the county authority and the Treasury.

ASSHETON CROSS
said, that this Bill would be a great financial relief to the counties; but if the Treasury wore to be attacked first of all for the prisons, then for the superannuation fund, and then goodness knew what would come next, the result would be that the gaols would be left just as they were now.

§ MR. FLOYER
thought it would be most unfair to the counties to charge them with any superannuations beyond those which would naturally under the old system have fallen upon them. If the 32nd clause had remained he could have supported the 33rd; but as that had been struck out he should be obliged to vote for the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet.

§ MR. CHILDERS
asked whether the Government intended to work the clause so as to enable the Treasury to apportion superannuation charges between the Imperial Exchequer and the counties?
Question put, That the words 'any annuity by way of superannuation allowance or gratuity under this section shall be' stand part of the Clause.

§ MR. PARNELL
moved that the Chairman report Progress, on the ground that at that time of the night hon. Members could not transact business with that careful attention which was desirable.

§ MR. BIGGAR
supported the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. Parnell.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
hoped the hon. Member would not persevere with his Motion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had an Amendment on the Paper, and when that was disposed of he should not go further.

§ MR. J. GOLDSMID
thought the question of reporting Progress might be compromised, if the right hon. Gentleman would conclude with Clause 35.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
assented to this suggestion.

§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN
thought on an important question of this kind—a question in which so many hon. Members were interested—Progress should not be reported; and, if reported, he should certainly vote against it.

§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY
concurred in the opinion that Progress ought not then to be reported.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he would withdraw his Motion.