PRISONS BILL.— [BILL 1.] (Hansard, 26 March 1877)

§ MR. CHILDERS
moved, as an Amendment, in page 15, line 1, after "thirty-eight," to insert the words— or by the Directors of the Prisons appointed in pursuance of the Act of the Session of the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the Queen, chapter thirty-nine. His object in proposing this Amendment was to bring the county and borough and the convict prisons under the same management, so as to avoid the inconvenience of having two sets of officials performing the same functions, with regard to the management of those establishments in different parts of the country. He did not propose to interfere with the formation of the new Department, or the appointment of a certain number of Commissioners, but he would incorporate with it the present Department, utilizing as many of the Directors of Prisons as were efficient for service, and the whole of the stores, building, medical, clerical, and other Civil staff. All the convenience and argument of the matter was in favour of having a single staff of officials. Colonel Ducane, the present head of the Prison Department —than whom there was no more efficient public servant, and whose services in the management of our convict establishments were so highly appreciated—would, by this means, be at the disposal of the Secretary of State for carrying out the objects of this Bill.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
thought there was much in the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman—certainly it was a matter that was worth the serious consideration of the Committee, but he thought there were reasons on 512 the other side which outweighed those which the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward. The Bill had been before the country for some time, and there were two classes of people who must be considered. There were the visiting justices, whose duties would be interfered with, and who had been given to understand that a new set of Commissioners were to be appointed. He did not intend to say a word against the old Commissioners, who had done their work well; but the Government felt that a new body of Commissioners was an indispensable provision, because they were intended to work with the justices in the management of the local prisons. Again, the class of prisoners with whom the new Commissioners would have to deal were to a large extent distinct from the convict class—such as debtors, misdemeanants, and untried prisoners, and others, who ought to be dealt with in a different manner from the convicts who were confined in the general prisons of the country. It was thought that if the former class were put under the Convict Commissioners, it might give rise to the impression that the properly rigorous discipline necessary for convicts would be applied under the new system to the less criminal class of offenders. As to the question of economy, every possible care would be taken that the expenditure should be kept down to the lowest possible point consistent with efficiency. He quite agreed in what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had said in respect of Colonel Ducane, who was one of the most able officers in the Civil Service, and of whose experience he should be glad to avail himself in any question of prison organization.

§ MR. DODSON
supported the Amendment. The reasons given the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State regarding this matter were that the present Directors of Convict Prisons had their hands full, and that the new body would have to deal with prisoners of another class; but to-night it was said the duties of the two bodies would be different in kind. It appeared to him that the staff of Directors of Convict Prisons should be increased, so as to have an uniform supervision over all classes of prisoners. This would be better than constituting a new body for the distinct management of 513 said so for the reasons that had been adduced in favour of having the direction of the whole prisons under the same body. The right hon. Gentleman himself appeared to look forward to the amalgamation of the two bodies; but whenever the time came they would be met by questions of compensation and difficulties of other kinds, which would be obviated by the course he suggested.

MR. PAGET
was in favour of the original proposition. In carrying out this Bill it was proposed largely to make use of the services of the Visiting Justices; but this could hardly be done without friction, if they were placed, as the Amendment proposed they should, directly in contact with the Directors of Convict Prisons, who had absolute control over the prisons under them. The Visiting Justices were much more likely to work with the new body of Commissioners constituted by the Bill. He thought the Home Secretary had done wisely in keeping the management of the county and borough gaols distinct from that of the convict prisons, and hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment.

§ MR. BRISTOWE
supported the Amendment, on the ground that the experience of those who had the management of the Convict Prisons would be of great advantage in connection with the others.

§ MR. RODWELL
thought the Amendment would destroy the symmetry of the Bill. He thought, moreover, that there was some force in the argument, that if there was only one body for the management of all classes of prisons, and that body the Directors of the Prison Department, an impression would probably prevail that the general management of the prisons was likely to be too rigorous.

§ MR. CHILDERS
pointed out that his Amendment did not propose to deprive the Government of the power of appointing the new Commissioners; all he meant was, that instead of creating another large staff, the great majority of the duties of which would be similar, it would be better to have only one Department of prison management. If he were assured by the Home Secretary that it was not proposed to create a distinct department for all these sub-duties, but simply to have two Boards 514 for directorial purposes, he would withdraw the Amendment.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he could not agree to making one servant subject to two masters, but as far as possible there would be no multiplication of officers to perform the same duties.

§ MR. W. HOLMS,
who had an Amendment upon the Paper, in page 16, line 27, to leave out from "any" to "Act," in line 28, inclusive, and insert— All rules and regulations made by a Secretary of State in pursuance of this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within ten days if Parliament is then sitting, or, if not then sitting, then within ten days from the then next assembling of Parliament and, said, that as the right hon. Gentleman opposite intended to propose an Amendment which would meet his (Mr. Holms's) view, he would withdraw his.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. FRESHFIELD
moved, as an Amendment, in page 16, line 28, after "Act," insert—"Shall be published in the 'London Gazette,' and."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that as the rules were to be submitted to Parliament there was no reason for inserting the words proposed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GORST
moved, as an Amendment, in page 16, line 28, to leave out—"Shall be of the same force as if enacted by Parliament." He feared they might practically give the Home Secretary power to repeal existing enactments, even to the extent of setting aside Magna Charta itself.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the rules would only be valid so far as they carried out the Act of Parliament. The words in question were copied from the Act of 1865, but were not really necessary, and he had no objection to their omission.
515 Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
moved, as an Amendment, in page 16, line 33, at end, add— Provided always, That any rules made in pursuance of this Act shall as soon as practicable be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and shall not come into operation until they have so lain for forty days, but at the expiration of such forty days they shall be of the same force as if they had been contained in this Act. After some conversation,

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON
moved, as an Amendment, in page 16, line 33, at end, add— Provided always, That all rules and regulations made under or in pursuance of this Act shall be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament, if Parliament be sitting, or, if not, then within three weeks after the beginning of the next ensuing Session of Parliament; and if any such rules or regulations shall be disapproved by either House of Parliament within thirty days after the same shall have been so laid before Parliament, such rules or regulations, or such parts thereof as shall be so disapproved of, shall be void and of no effect.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he was willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and would withdraw his own in favour of it.
Amendment (Mr. Assheton Cross), by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That all rules and regulations made under or in pursuance of this Act shall be forthwith laid before both Houses of Parliament, if Parliament be sitting, or if not, then within three weeks after the beginning of the next ensuing Session of Parliament; and if any such rules or regulations shall be disapproved by either House of Parliament within thirty days after the same shall have been so laid before Parliament, such rules or regulations, or such parts thereof as shall be so disapproved of, shall be void and of no effect"— (Mr. Serjeant Simon.) Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

§ MR. NEWDEGATE,
who had an Amendment on the Paper, in page 16, line 33, at end of clause, to add "after such rules have been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament," said: Mr. Raikes, it is perfectly true that the form of the Amendment, of 516 which I have given Notice is adapted to the clause as it stands, and equally to the Amendment or Proviso proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but the position is altered by what the right hon. Gentleman has now done. The right hon. Gentleman has thought fit to abandon the Proviso of which he had given Notice and has adopted the Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend opposite the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon). Now, the effect of that change is this—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury, by his Amendment, goes part of the way to the end which I desire to attain; because he proposes that if any rule be disapproved by a Resolution of this House, or the House of Lords, it shall not have the force of law; whereas my Amendment proposes that no rule shall have effect under this Act, unless it has been approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament. I hope the Committee will excuse me for now stating my reasons for proposing this Amendment. I have opposed this Bill on the ground that it proposes to abolish an ancient jurisdiction, which has been shown to exist in the justices of the peace, undoubtedly in Devonshire, but certainly also in other counties, since the days of Queen Elizabeth. It seems as if the House has decided to sweep away this ancient jurisdiction, and my desire now is, that supposing this House to be determined to abolish this jurisdiction, that this House should take care of itself, so that while sweeping away a local jurisdiction, the House should be quite sure that it retains, and is not parting with, its own jurisdiction. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has explained that the latter words of this clause, which declare that these rules may repeal Acts of Parliament, are unnecessary; and I grant that they would have been unnecessary, because, whether he had adhered to the form of the Amendment which he has proposed and abandoned, or adopted the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury, he will give effect to the repeal of enactments by his rules, although without the use of express words in the Bill. By having accepted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury, the right hon. Gentleman has somewhat confused the position of 517 the matter which is before the Committee. I believe, however, that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dewsbury approves of my proposal, which embodies his own, but goes rather further in the same direction. I hope, therefore, he will withdraw his Amendment. But if he does not withdraw it, I can still move my Amendment as an addition to it; and, perhaps, the Committee will be good enough to allow me now to state my reasons for intending to do so. I rejoice that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has decided upon submitting these rules to the two Houses of Parliament. I think it a great constitutional gain that he has decided to do that, for it partly removes that which really appeared to me a stigma on the Bill. The bare fact that Parliament was asked unconditionally to delegate to an Executive officer of the Crown an unlimited power of legislation with regard to such important subjects as how many prisons shall be retained; how many prisons shall be abolished; what classes of prisoners shall be placed in each; what discipline shall be established in any or in all; what officers shall be appointed; what shall be the diet; what the distinctive treatment for non-convicted persons as contrasted with that to be pursued towards convicted prisoners; to ask Parliament to delegate such enormous legislative powers as these, appears to me to be asking for more than Parliament ought to grant. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to submit these rules to the Houses of Parliament appears to me to be an acknowledgment that the discretionary power for which he originally asked was wider than in his own judgment, as now matured, ought finally to be granted. I take this to be a concession to the arguments which have been addressed to him and to the House in the course of these discussions. But there is another consideration which I wish to place before the Committee. The "half-past 12" rule is now in operation, and under that rule no Opposed Business can be taken after half-past 12 o'clock at night. Now, on Friday last no less than 30 hon. Members placed their names on the ballot in order to sscure days for their several Notices, and on the previous Tuesday there were 27 hon. Members who ballotted. If 518 these rules are to lie on the Table of the House for only 30 days, I put it to the House and to hon. Members, what chance would an unofficial Member have of obtaining an opportunity of calling the attention of the House to these rules? Why, a very lamentably bad chance. And if he succeeded, what then? He would give Notice, and of course he would be at once told that it was an adverse Notice, and it would primâ facie meet with the opposition of the Government. I submit, then, inasmuch as these rules are to be the product of the Home Secretary, inasmuch as he is to frame them, and must give the sanction of his authority to them when he lays them on the Table of the House, and inasmuch as, being a leading Member of the Government, he has ample command of the time of this House, whether it would not be more convenient to the House, and more respectful to the House, if, instead of merely placing these rules before the House and assuming the consent of the House, if objection be not taken within 30 days—an objection which it would be very difficult to take—to these rules, which are to have an enacting and repealing power, rules which, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own or his adopted Amendment, are to have all the force of an Act of Parliament, I repeat, that it would be more convenient and more respectful to the House that the right hon. Gentleman should, as Home Secretary, ask the assent of the House to the rules he will produce by moving that "the House do approve these rules?" From conversations which I have had with a considerable number of hon. Members of this House, I gather that they think that what I propose would remove much of the constitutional objection they entertain to this Bill, and at the same time that my proposal would facilitate the Business of the House; because otherwise it might happen, owing to the difficulty of naming a day for discussing the rules, hon. Members might be tempted to interpose Questions and Motions for Adjournment, in despair of attracting the attention of the House in any other and more legitimate manner to those rules, which, under this Clause, are to be laid upon the Table of the House, and, therefore, will be nominally, at all events, submitted to the judgment of the House.

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON
said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had withdrawn unexpectedly his Proviso, to which he had proposed to add the words of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and the right hon. Gentleman now offered to accept his present Amendment. Seeing, however, that by that course he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) should entirely defeat the object he had in view, he felt bound, under the circumstances, to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, in order that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, who had communicated with him on the subject, might be able to propose his words.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he felt it impossible to allow the Amendment to be withdrawn, because he had withdrawn his own in its favour. If the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) wished to add any words, he might propose them afterwards.

§ MR. DODSON
thought they were getting into some confusion by the number of different Amendments before the Committee. He would suggest, in order that they might have a clear issue before them, that the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) should move an Amendment in the Proviso now submitted from the Chair by striking out all the words after "Parliament," in order to insert— That such rules shall not come into operation until they have been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he would adopt the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), and move that no rules or regulations should come into force until adopted by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Considering the state of Business, and the few opportunities afforded private Members to bring forward Motions, no opportunity would be afforded in 30 or 40 days, as now proposed, to move any Amendment.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 5, to leave out from the words "Parliament and" to the end of the proposed Amendment, in order to add the words "no such rules or regulations shall come into force until the 520 same have been approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament."—(Mr. Newdegate.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
opposed the Amendment, on the ground that, if the rules were to be discussed, as proposed by his hon. Friend, word by word, not one of them would probably pass, and they would have all the trouble of discussing the Bill over again. He (Mr. Cross) had made a fair proposition, one which would meet the opinion of the House—namely, that the rules should lie on the Table of the House for a certain period—he did not care whether it was 30 or 40 days—before they came into operation. During that period any hon. Member who wished to have any of the rules changed would have an opportunity of moving to that effect. No less than three or four hon. Members, all sitting on the opposite side of the House, had put down their own Amendments after most serious and careful consideration, but none of them went so far as his (Mr. Assheton Cross's) Amendment went. He hoped the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) would not press his Amendment.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
asked whether the rules would have force after they had lain for 40 days upon the Table of the House?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
Yes; it was so proposed.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
said, he also had an Amendment on the Paper. The discussion had proceeded on the assumption that the rules would be laid on the Table of the House; but there was no obligation to lay them on the Table, and the Home Secretary did not say when he would lay them on the Table of the House. His Amendment was, that it should be imperative for the Home Secretary to lay the rules and regulations upon the Table of the House before the Act came into operation.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) applied to the latter part of the clause, and the Amendment now referred to applied to the first part of it. The only way for the hon. Member for Dudley to proceed was, to move to add his Amendment at the end of the clause.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, there was a misprint in the clause, the word 521 "may" having been printed instead of "shall." It was intended to make it imperative on him to produce the rules.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
remarked that it still left the time at which they should be produced unnamed.

§ MR. WHITWELL
supported the view of the Government.

§ SIR WILLIAM FRASER
said, the question was, whether the House was to settle the rules for unconvicted prisoners, or the Secretary of State. He could not consent to so important a matter being left to the Secretary of State. As to laying these rules on the Table, what chance would a private Member have of opposing them?

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
said, that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) were negatived, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) would require amendment; otherwise the moment the rules were issued by the Home Secretary, they would come into force.

§ MR. WHITBREAD
hoped they would have an opportunity distinctly afforded them of bringing the rules and regulations under the consideration of the House and not be content with merely having them laid upon the Table for 30 or 40 days. Such a precaution, as it at present existed, was entirely illusory; for instance, in the case of the Endowed Schools schemes, who got an opportunity of bringing them under the consideration of the House? They were now proposing to make rules which ought to have been made in the Act of Parliament. They ought to have an opportunity of making objections if they thought fit; if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary really meant that they should have an opportunity, let him secure it to them at once.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
believed that the objections raised by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary were without any foundation whatever. All he required was, that the House should have an opportunity of discussing these rules and regulations, and he never intended that they should be laid before the House and discussed separately. He agreed in what had been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whitbread), that experience had shown the difficulties that lay in the way of inde- 522 pendent Members bringing forward any proposal to alter rules of the kind when they had been laid upon the Table. The right hon. Gentleman had made a most significant admission when he said that if these rules had to pass the House they would never pass at all.

§ MR. WALTER
said, that his experience in connection with the Endowed Schools schemes differed from that of the hon. Member who had referred to them (Mr. Whitbread), inasmuch as he recollected that there had been very lively discussions in reference to those schemes after they had been laid upon the Table. Believing that the objections to the clause had no foundation in fact, and that there would be ample opportunity for hon. Members to discuss these rules after they had been laid upon the Table, he should support the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. DODSON
referred to the former practice of the House with reference to the mail and telegraph contracts, and said that when those contracts were placed on the Table, it was found that they either escaped the attention of the House, or they were forgotten until it was too late, or no opportunity could be found to discuss any objection to their approval. After some years, the rule was altered, and it was made a Standing Order that no mail or telegraph contract should come into operation until it had received the actual approval of the House by Resolution. And so it would be in this case, if the 30 or 40 days' rule were adopted. What the Committee wanted, and what he (Mr. Dodson) trusted the right hon. Gentleman opposite would do in the matter, would be to find some satisfactory means to give the House an opportunity of discussing the objections to the rules after they had been laid on the Table.

§ MR. RODWELL
did not think that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) realized the effect of his Amendment; for if it were adopted, they might be the whole Session discussing rules and regulations on the most trivial points. Further than that, if the rules were to receive the active approval of the House before they came into force, the Home Secretary would have no power to alter them to suit particular exigencies until the next meeting of Parliament.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
suggested that any necessary alteration in the mode of procedure could be insured by way of Proviso at the end of the clause.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he considered the argument of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, in proposing his Amendment, unanswerable; and he should support it. It would be perfectly impossible for any Member to raise a discussion within 40 days on the rules.

§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT
hoped that means would be afforded by the Government to Parliament for discussing and, if necessary, altering the rules for the management of prisons. That was all the Committee desired; and, assuming that his right hon. Friend would be able to see his way to make an alteration in the clause, he would suggest an Amendment, to be brought up on the Report, to the effect that if within 40 days after the rules had been laid on the Table no objection was taken to them, they should take effect; but if Notice of objection were taken in either House of Parliament within 40 days, then the rules should not come into force until they had received the sanction of Parliament.

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON
supported the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate).

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he had himself drawn up an Amendment to that proposed by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) pretty much the same as that recommended by the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter Barttelot). The prisons of England in the olden time, before the labours of Howard, were a scandal to the civilized world; and notwithstanding the labours of that eminent man and the reforms introduced, too many cases of tyranny and bullying on the part of officials occurred even now. The other night the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cross) objected to lay the rules and regulations on the Table of the House until he had received the Report of the Commissioners. It was only reasonable when the rules were before hon. Members that any private Member should have the opportunity of laying his objection to any or all of those rules before the House. If the right hon. Gentleman really meant to give to the House that control which he 524 had promised, then why did he not agree that the power of control should be properly secured to the House? Every private Member know perfectly well that it would be impossible—a mere illusion—to suppose he could oppose the Government upon any rule merely laid upon the Table of the House. Unless the Secretary of State would consent to give that opportunity the further passage of the Bill ought to be opposed until a proper arrangement was made. The hon. Member proceeded to detail at great length the case of Daniel Reddin, convicted of riot and assault at Manchester on the occasion of the attack on the police van when Serjeant Brett was killed. Reddin was sentenced to seven years penal servitude and was confined in Portland Prison. There, as was alleged, he suffered paralysis of arms and legs and was unable to do the work set him by the prison authorities. The hon. Member was proceeding to read affidavits alleging illtreatment by the medical and prison officers, when—

ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM EDMON-STONE
rose to Order, and asked whether every detail ought to be read from the affidavits.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that as the hon. Member's argument had reference to prison rules, he held that he was not out of Order; but, at the same time, he thought that the hon. Member ought not to go fully into all the details of that particular case.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he could not go into the whole case, for there were 35 affidavits made before the Court of Queen's Bench; but, on some future occasion, he would bring the whole of the case before the House. He would only now refer to the salient points. The hon. Member proceeded to quote details from affidavits, when—

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that though the hon. Member was entitled in discussing the prison rules to refer to a particular case, he was travelling beyond a mere reference, and was entering into details which would be more suitable for a separate Motion.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought he was justified in going into details. The House could not stamp too strongly on this Bill its determination that prisoners, whether tried or untried, should be treated in a humane manner. He would, therefore, go on to read a few more affidavits, 525 and the hon Member was proceeding, when—
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

§ MR. PARNELL
resumed his remarks, and was again reading long extracts from affidavits, when—

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the hon. Member was deviating from the universal practice of the Committee, and that the circumstances to which he was directing attention were only most distantly connected with the question before the Committee.

§ MR. PARNELL
observed that the point of the case to which he was referring was, that a prisoner who was suffering from paralysis had been treated as a malingerer. The hon. Member having referred to the manner in which the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1866 had been passed through Parliament by a suspension of the Standing Orders, said he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. If it were not adopted, the rules made by the Home Secretary might be on the Table for the full term of 40 days without any hon. Member having the opportunity of objecting to them. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would agree to furnish an opportunity of discussing the rules.

§ MR. FAY
considered the manner in which the Secretary of State for the Home Department received every suggestion was fair and reasonable towards English prisoners; but he questioned if the Chief Secretary for Ireland would show himself equally considerate in the Irish Prisons Bill with respect to the treatment of Irish prisoners. He entirely objected to rules, as however well intended an Act might be, those who would have the making of the rules would virtually overrule it. Acts which were in themselves good had been ruined in Ireland by rules afterwards drawn up, and he trusted, therefore, that no rules would be allowed upon this subject unless they first received the sanction of Parliament.

§ MR. BIGGAR
maintained that the proposed rules should be submitted for the approval of the House, and not left to the discretion of the Home Secretary, 526 who, at some future day, might not be an official possessing the confidence of the country.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
believed that if the administration of justice as proposed by the Bill was to command the confidence of the country, it was necessary that the rules—which were the very essence of the measure—should receive the assent of Parliament before being put into operation in the manner which he had proposed—a manner which was the least calculated to interrupt the progress of the House.
Question put, "That the words 'if any such rules' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 54: Majority 35.—(Div. List, No. 47.)
On the Motion of Mr. ASSHETON CROSS, Amendment (Mr. Serjeant Simon) amended by substituting the word "forty," instead of "thirty," in line 6.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
On the Motion of Sir HENRY JAMES, the following Amendment was agreed to, and added to the Clause:— Provided also, That no such rules or regulations shall come into force or operation until the same shall have been laid before Parliament for forty days.

§ MR. BIGGAR
proposed to amend the preceding Amendment, by adding to it the words, "or be accepted by a Vote of the House of Commons." The rules might then come into force within the 40 days if the Government asked for a Vote of the House in their favour. He did not think it necessary to trouble the other House about it.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
opposed the addendum. The proposal was an unusual one, and he did not see any sufficient reason for it.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan was to provide 40 days for discussion of the rules.
Amendment negatived.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
moved to add at the end of the preceding Amendment a Proviso that the rules and regulations should be laid before both House of Parliament before the Act came into general operation.
Amendment proposed, To add, at the end of the last Amendment, the words "Provided also, That the first rules and regulations made under or in pursuance of this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament before this Act comes into general operation."—(Mr. H. B. Sheridan.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the Amendment was quite unnecessary, as the rules would have to be approved by Parliament before they could come into force. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be withdrawn.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
explained that his object was to induce the Government either to set forth in the Schedule or state to Parliament the nature of the rules and regulations which were to affect untried prisoners. He should press the Amendment.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, it was obvious to every reasonable person that the issue was whether the House should have an opportunity of deciding on these rules or not.

§ MR. BIGGAR
wished to point out the unwillingness of the Home Secretary to take the House into his confidence as to what gaols and counties should be disestablished, if he might use the expression, and what was the nature of the rules. He also objected to private conferences between hon. Members who wished to move Amendments and the Home Secretary; it was more satisfactory that all discussions should be made on the floor of the House.
Question put, "That those words be there added.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 119: Majority 79.—(Div. List, No. 48.)

§ MR. PARNELL
moved to add to the Proviso that the rules should have the force of law after lying 40 days on the Table of the House the words— Provided, that no Notice of Motion opposing any rule or regulation shall have been given by any Member of the House of Commons. This, he thought, was only fair towards 528 private Members, who had few opportunities of gaining the ear of the House.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
hoped the hon. Member would not persevere in the Amendment, because the object of it was opposed to the decision at which the Committee had already arrived.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
expressed his approval of the Amendment.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
pointed out that if the Proviso were added, some hon Member might for the purpose of obstruction give Notice of a Motion opposing all the rules. There always would be people who would choose to be obstructive.

MR. SULLIVAN
thought that at the beginning of any Session hon. Members ought to have the opportunity of pointing out any defect that might have been discovered in the rules.

§ MR. BIGGAR
supported the Amendment, the object of which was to give to each Member of the House the opportunity of expressing his views respecting the rules.

§ MR. PARNELL,
out of deference to the feeling of the Committee, said he would not press his Amendment, although he considered he would be doing wrong by abandoning it. He must, however, say that it was incorrect in any hon. Member to say that he was chargeable with obstructing the business of the House. His opinion on that was that the action of obstruction should, when it was employed, be like that of the bayonet, short, sharp, and decisive. Ho would, however, never shrink from endeavouring to obtain a hearing for any one who wished to raise a reasonable discussion.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
moved as an Amendment, in page 17, line 13, after "stores, the addition of the words "except goods manufactured for sale, and materials in store for the purpose of such manufacture."

MR. GORST
moved the first of a series of Amendments which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Freshfield), the object of which was to prevent lands at present in the possession of the prison authorities, and not required for the purposes of the prison, being vested in the Secretary of State.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that the object which the hon. and learned Member had in view would be perfectly carried out by an Amendment which he (Mr. Cross) himself intended to propose.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
moved to add the following words to the Proviso at the end of the clause enabling the Secretary of State to direct that any portion of lands bought, or contracted to be bought, before the commencement of the Act by a prison authority, and which in his opinion is not necessary for the purposes of such prison, shall be re-conveyed to the prison authority:— Or retain such portion or any part of such portion, on payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such a sum as may be agreed upon, or, in the event of difference, may be determined by arbitration in manner provided by this Act, on the transfer of any such prison to him, and the vesting thereof in him as by this Act provided.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following Clause:— (Report to contain information as to manufacturing processes in prison.) The annual Report of the Prison Commissioners required by this Act to be laid before both Houses of Parliament shall state the various manufacturing processes carried on in each of the prisons within their jurisdiction, and such statement shall contain such particulars as to the kind and quantities of, and as to the profits on the manufactures, as to the number of prisoners employed, and otherwise, as may, in the opinion of the Secretary of State be best calculated to afford information to Parliament.

§ MR. MORLEY
said, with regard to work done in prison, and sent into the market in competition with the work of men engaged in trades outside the walls of prisons, large bodies of industrious 530 tradesmen were suffering from the heavy pressure in the market of such competition; and he should feel it his duty to move some declaration to the effect, that in the employments to which convicts were put, it would be desirable to avoid undue interference with trades; but he thought a declaration from the right hon. Gentleman opposite would do a a great deal to allay an excitement which existed, and which was likely to continue, unless workpeople had some actual guarantee against such competition in the Act of Parliament. He would like to see the clause which the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had suggested on that matter adopted.

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON
said, that the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Morley) was embodied in a clause of which he (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had given Notice to insert in the Bill, and the principle of which had already received the approval of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was to the effect that rules and regulations should be made, so that sentences of "hard labour" should include as many trades and industries as possible, but always so as to prevent undue and unfair competition with any particular trades and industries. In the case of short sentences to hard labour there was no time to learn trades, except those of mat-making and brush-making, which were subject to severe competition by prison labour, but the great thing was to lay down a principle. He admitted that new clause proposed by the Home Secretary was satisfactory so far as the information to be laid before Parliament was concerned, but it would not meet the real difficulty of the question.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
hoped they would not get into another long discussion on a subject which a few nights ago had occupied them for many hours. There was not the slightest difference of opinion about the matter. He would read to the Committee part of a letter which had been sent out by the Home Office on the question of Reformatory Schools. It said that the Secretary of State wished to repeat the words in which he had answered many memorials which had been addressed to him on that subject—namely, that the establishment of Reformatory Schools having been authorized by Parliament for the welfare 531 of society in general, it would be impossible not to continue in them the industrial occupations which were essential characteristics of those institutions; but that at the same time every possible care should be taken to prevent injury being done thereby to particular trades. He had no objection to putting a Preamble to that effect into the clause on the Report, when, if the hon. Member for Bristol was not satisfied, he might propose an Amendment.

§ MR. MORLEY
said, that when the subject was last discussed in the House there was not one dissentient voice as to the propriety of what he urged; and he only would make now a simple declaration that all future Secretaries of State would take care that what he complained of should not be repeated.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
moved a clause enabling the Secretary of State to make special rules as to the treatment of unconvicted and certain other prisoners.
New Clause— (Special rules as to treament of unconvicted prisoners and certain other prisoners.) (Whereas it is expedient that a clear difference should be made between the treatment of persons unconvicted of crime and in law presumably innocent during the period of their detention in prison for safe custody only, and the treatment of prisoners who have been convicted of crime during the period of their detention in prison for the purpose of punishment, and that, in order to secure the observance of such difference there should be in force in every place in which prisoners are confined for safe custody only, 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 necessity of a conformity to regular rules for the purpose of preserving order and good government in the place in which they are confined, and to the physical and moral well-being of the prisoners themselves: Therefore, Be it Enacted, That the Secretary of State may from time to time make, and when made 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, 532 so as to secure to such prisoner as unrestricted and private 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 considerations; and

"(3.)With respect to arrangements whereby prisoners may provide themselves with articles of diet, or may be furnished with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food, and may be protected from being called upon to perform any unaccustomed tasks or offices; also any matter which the Secretary of State may think conducive to the amelioration of the condition of a prisoner who has not been convicted of crime, regard being had to such matters as are in this section directed to be regarded,)"—(Mr. Secretary Cross,)

—brought up, and read the first time.
On Question, That the clause be now read a second time,

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON
suggested an alteration in the wording of the clause with the view of extending the special rules to the case of persons arrested under a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he had only had the opportunity of reading the additional clause that morning, and he saw, of course, the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to redeem the promise made to the Committee the other evening. At the same time he could not but think that it was desirable to define in the clause the case of those persons arrested under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
declined to adopt the suggestion. With reference to persons arrested in Ireland under a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, special provision was already made as to their treatment. He could not contemplate the possibility of the Habeas Corpus Act being suspended in England. It would be time enough to make special rules with reference to persons detained in England under a suspension of that Act when its suspension in England was proposed.

MR. SULLIVAN
hoped the day was far distant when the Habeas Corpus Act would be suspended in England; but he feared that if that evil day should come, the moment of panic would not be one in which the House would patiently listen to an hon. Member who should endeavour to secure exceptional treatment for persons about to be arrested. Irish. 533 Members felt they must secure the present opportunity, when the House was in a better mood, to discuss the matter without panic. If no such state of things arose, no harm would be done by the amendment of the clause.

§ Mr. PARNELL
agreed with the hon. Member for Louth. There had been several instances of the suspension of the Act within recent experience, and in no single instance had the question of the treatment of prisoners been considered. There was an instance under the late Liberal Government, who might be supposed to have every desire to respect the liberty of the subject as far as possible. But such was the panic, and such the desire on the part of the House to preserve the integrity of the Empire, that the Act for suspension was passed without discussion, and the Standing Orders were suspended to pass the Bill in its three stages in one night. Lately the House had heard the experience of an hon. Member as to the treatment received in prison—as to the way prisoners were exposed to all kinds of petty tyranny. The Committee must have seen how unjust it was that persons not convicted, not even charged with crime, should be so treated. Some Amendment was necessary that would meet the case of those persons—something that extended beyond a mere "yea" or "nay." It was not reasonable, and the Home Secretary, with that humanity which distinguished him, would surely see his way to that. The Amendment that he (Mr. Parnell) wished to move was the insertion of the words, "also of all persons arrested under any suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act." That would clearly define the distinction between that class of prisoners and others.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the Forms of the House did not permit the Amendment being put until the clause had been read a second time.
After a few words from Mr. Serjeant SIMON,
Question put, and agreed to.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that he would agree to the suggestion made at an earlier period of the evening to substitute the word "shall" for the word "should" in the clause, providing that there "should" be special rules in force in every place in which prisoners 534 were confined for safe custody. He would move accordingly.
Amendment agreed to; word substituted.

§ MR. PARNELL
then moved an Amendment on the clause, providing that "all persons arrested under any suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act "should also, as well "as persons unconvicted of crime," be distinguished in their treatment from persons actually convicted.
Amendment proposed, In line 3, after the word "only," to insert the words "and also all persons arrested under any suspensions of the Habeas Corpus Act."— (Mr. Parnell.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
in opposing the Amendment, said, he thought that the hon. Member for Meath must be under some mistake. Under the Act of 1871 the Lord Lieutenant had the power of making rules, and had made rules making considerable exceptions in the treatment of persons confined under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act.

MR. SULLIVAN
hoped the House would see the justice of the Amendment, which, if it went to a division, he should support.

§ MR. KING-HARMAN
thought there could be no objection to the Amendment. It could do no harm, and if acceded to then, would prevent a long discussion when the Irish Bill was before the Committee.

§ MR. BIGGAR
saw a clear saving of time in adopting the Amendment, which could then also be introduced into the Irish Prisons Bill. It was the more necessary because Irishmen were ruled by English authorities, who did not know the feelings of the Irish people the same as their own Representatives did.

§ MR. PARNELL
again urged the importance of introducing into the Bill a provision of this kind, which should make the clear distinction that persons arrested under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act were convicted of no crime.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
moved the omission of the word "moral" from the sentence in the proposed new clause for "preserving order and good government in the place in which they are confined, and the physical and moral well-being of the prisoners themselves." He wished to know what meaning was to be attached to the word "moral." Surely a prisoner was not to be harassed with chapel exercises at a time when he wanted to prepare his defence.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, it was rather a difficult thing to touch on. He had no doubt, however, the word was well understood by the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN,
in the first sub-section of the clause, proposed to include "money" in the list of articles which, being in the possession of an unconvicted prisoner at the time of his arrest, and not being evidence in connection with the charge against him, he should be allowed to retain.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it was undesirable to leave in the hands of a prisoner the means of bribing the warders. If any portion of the money were required for the prisoner's defence, or other legitimate purpose, he could obtain it upon making application.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
moved the omission, from the second sub-section, of the words, "restricting the communications between a prisoner and his friends, in order to prevent his tampering with evidence."
Amendment proposed, in line 24, to leave out the words "any tampering with evidence and." — (Mr. H. B. Sheridan.)

MR. ASSHETON CROSS,
in opposing the Amendment, said, he thought the words were so plain that they needed no explanation.

§ MR. MITCHELL HENRY
said, the earlier part of the clause was inconsistent with the subsequent part.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
Who are to be the judges of tampering?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
The gaol authorities.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
What authorities?

§ MR. PARNELL
complained that the right hon. Gentleman had given no explanation of the words, and moved that the Chairman report Progress.
After some conversation,
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

§ SIR HENRY JACKSON
thought the proposal in the clause very reasonable, its object being to prevent that tampering with evidence which they all knew did take place.

§ MR. ANDERSON
agreed with this view.

§ MR. T. E. SMITH
pointed out that it was unfair to treat an unconvicted man as though he were guilty.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
thought there was a good deal in what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) said to induce the Committee to insert the words in the clause which he proposed. It was only fair that a prisoner should have a free and unrestricted communication with his solicitor and friends before his trial, which the clause in a great degree prevented him from enjoying.

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
observed that there was no reason for casting this slur on a prisoner; and further, if his Amendment were not accepted, there would be one law for the rich and another for the poor; and while the rich man was out on bail, with every facility for preparing his defence, the poor man would be in prison under this rule, which might be used as a means of interfering to a great extent with his free intercourse with his solicitor and friends.

§ DR. KENEALY
supported the Amendment, on the ground that prison officials were always inclined to treat every man in their custody as if he was guilty. The right hon. Gentleman ought to treat the Amendments with more consideration. The clause gave with one breath a liberty which with another it took away. A general rule ought not to be made stigmatizing visitors of prisoners.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
denied that he had not treated Amendments with due consideration. The clause was only to enable the Secretary of State to make rules.
537 Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed new Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 174; Noes 40: Majority 134.—(Div. List, No. 50.)

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN
proposed to amend the clause by providing that unconvicted prisoners might have cells properly warmed and lighted, and of a superior class to those provided for convicts in the same prisons.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the words were unnecessary, as the latter part of the clause gave the Secretary of State all the powers requisite.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
On the Motion of Mr. ASSHETON CROSS, the following new Clause:— (Salaries.) There may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to all or any one or more of the Prison Commissioners such salary for their or his services as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury determine. There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to the inspectors and other officers and servants of the Prison Commissioners such salaries as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury determine. agreed to, and added to the Bill.

DR. KENEALY*
said, he rose to move the insertion of the following now clause in the Bill:— The Prisons Commissioners shall make a yearly Return to Parliament of all punishments of any kind whatsoever which may have been inflicted within the prison upon convicts, together with the causes of and reasons for such punishments; and shall report in their own (the convicts) language any complaints which may have reached them against the treatment which they may have received in the prison. He did this because he was persuaded that there was a large amount of tyranny and cruelty practised in those prisons, which could only be restrained, or kept in check, by a yearly Return made to Parliament, such as he had indicated in his proposed clause. There were persons who said it was well that even cruelties should take place, as they would have "a deterrent effect" upon the criminal population. But he begged leave to differ from these individuals.
538 In the last century, and even in the early part of the present, persons were hanged in dozens for trivial offences; but these miserable spectacles did not produce "a deterrent effect;" and it was found necessary to relax, and not to augment, the punishment of death. He never could believe that any useful purpose could be gained by the wrongs inflicted in prisons. And he believed that the House was not aware of the extent of those wrongs. He found in Parliamentary Return, Number 497, that the number of prisoners flogged by order of visiting justices in England and Wales, from July, 1864, to March, 1871, was 1,398. This was rather a startling list. The world did not know for what sort of offences these floggings were inflicted, and he desired that Parliament should be made acquainted every year with the numbers flogged or otherwise punished, and the reasons also for the punishment. All these punishments, inflicted by order of a secret and irresponsible tribunal, should be viewed with suspicion and jealousy; there was always a disposition to conceal them, which did not look well. He instanced the recent case of Gunner Charlton, as brought before the House by hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin). The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, in his usual jaunty and plausible manner, had denied, or had made light of many of the facts which the hon. Member had stated; but, notwithstanding that, there was a general and a deep impression in the public mind that Charlton had been used with the greatest cruelty at Mill-bank. He had also at the beginning of the Session brought before the House and the Home Secretary details of the condition of an unhappy man now in Dartmoor, the mention of whose name always elicited laughter in that Assembly; and the right hon. Gentleman had never denied any of the statements made with reference to that hapless individual. More recently they had all read in the papers an account of George Bidwell, who was also confined in Dartmoor. This person was, he believed, a member of the American Bar; he was a man of great intelligence, and, he believed, had fine feelings. In an evil hour he was tempted into forgeries on the Bank of England, and was sentenced to penal servitude. He was stripped in prison a few weeks ago, and then it was discovered 539 that he had actually concealed under his armpits a rat and a mouse, which he had caught and fed and kept there, to give him a sort of companionship during the horrible hours of prison. A fact like this proved, more than anything he could say, how terrible must be the agonies which these convicts endured when they had recourse to devices like this. These things might go on for ever, and the House would never know. The right hon. Gentleman, by Section 8 of his Bill, provided that his Prison Commissioners might examine into the treatment and conduct of prisoners, and inquire into all the abuses of the prison, and have all the powers of visiting justices; but no control was to be exercised over them, so as to prevent an abuse of their powers; and they were not bound to make a report to anybody of their acts, or of any abuses. In the same way the visiting justices, under Section 11, might hear complaints made to them, and should report on any abuses within the prison; but the right hon. Gentleman had not provided as to the person to whom they were to report. These persons were to have the same powers as visiting justices under Sections 58 and 59 of the Prison Act, 1865. They might confine in a punishment cell for one month; they might order corporal punishment. The right hon. Gentleman had not stated from what class he intended to select his Prison Commissioners; but if they were to be chosen exclusively from the Army or Navy, he feared that there was too much readiness among these gentlemen to resort to flogging. He said this without intending any reflection on either of those gallant Services. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the whole internal system of prisons was perfect, and that no wrongs could prevail; but it was entirely in the gaoler's discretion whether a prisoner could make his grievances known. He might take means to prevent his ever seeing a Commissioner; and, if he did so, his conduct never could be known. All complaints should be heard before a tribunal to which the public could have access. At present the hearing was a farce. The complaining prisoner was brought in the custody of two warders, preceded by a head-warder with his sword, carried into a room, and placed in a sort of dock. There were present the gaoler and the 540 warders, the clerk, and the Commissioner, who had probably just lunched with the gaoler, had heard his account of the matter, and paid very little heed to what the convict said. It might be said that he could petition the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, he feared that though petitions might be written, they did not always reach the Home Office. Petitioners could not always write, and they were at the mercy of the schoolmaster, who might narrate their wrongs in a way that would accommodate his superior in the prison. Prisoners, therefore, ought to be allowed to see, or to communicate freely with their friends, for it was only thus that their miseries could be made known. So, when they were ill, they ought not to be dependent solely upon the prison doctor. The House had heard from the hon. Member for Meath a startling history of the way in which a political prisoner had been used; and from the inquiries which he himself had made, he believed that the complaint was common. At Woking, which was a sort of pet prison, a model convict prison, in 1872 a man named Chapman complained repeatedly to the medical officer — "I'm dying — I'm dying." He was not believed. A few days after he was found dead at the surgery door, to which he had crawled. And how were the dead treated? In a manner calculated to make the living enemies of mankind for ever, when they saw the way in which their fellow beings were disposed of. The dead were at once carried to a dead house. There they were cut open. An inquest was held before a jury composed of tradesmen who supplied the prison, and a verdict was found in accordance, not with facts, for these did not always come before them; but as the prison authorities wanted. The body was then thrust into a long box, lamp blacked all over, and buried. How must not such hideous sights affect even the worst criminals? Had it not a tendency to harden them into devils? And could it be expected that any reformation could ever happen, when sights like this were of ordinary occurrence? These men were stripped naked every month, to see whether they had anything about them, contrary to prison rule. This was a savage thing to do; it helped to make them savages. He had received a letter from a convict, with which he felt that he must trouble the 541 House. A sense of public duty compelled him to do so. The hon. Member read the letter accordingly. It contained, amongst other charges of harsh and humiliating treatment, this passage— I am sorry to say, with much bitterness, that I fell into error, and was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. I was sent to Millbank, and when admitted there, I, with fourteen others, was subjected to treatment which was most revolting to the barbarous mind much less to any man of education (pardon my plain language). Immediately we were received, orders were given to strip off every article of apparel, and that in the presence of each other, and when in a perfect state of nudity each one was ordered to stoop down in a most disgusting posture, and the officers of the prison inspected each person in his …. in a most revolting manner, even …. This, Sir, is done not only on admission, but you are subjected to it frequently, and at any hour. Not only is this carried on at Millbank, but also at the other prisons, and I leave this with you, Sir, to surmise what this treatment must be to a refined mind; it seems to me that the object is to induce men to lose their own self-respect, and, if that is once lost, reformation is hopeless. I can assure you that I complained to the chaplains of two prisons, Millbank and Woking, about this treatment, and all I could hear from them was, that it was part of the discipline of the prison. This was a horrible state of facts; and therefore it was that he asked for publicity. The House had already heard of the insolence and indignities with which the hon. Member for Louth had been treated; he would not therefore allude to them again. At Millbank and other of those convict prisons it was a common thing to apply the galvanic battery between the eyes of convicts, sometimes to other and more delicate parts, which he would not name. That was done when the doctors imagined that the convicts shammed illness. In a word, so terrible was the system of torture going on, that at Chatham convicts had been known to throw themselves under the waggon-trucks, so as to break their limbs, and get away to hospital, where they often remained crippled for life. Woking was filled with men from Chatham and Portland who had cut off their hands at their wrists, or who had chopped off their fingers, to escape labour of the cruel kind to which they were compelled. And when they were sent to Woking how were they treated? Fifty criminals slept in one room, and the night was spent in the narration of horrible crimes, or in concocting new villanies and robberies when they got out. He therefore besought the right 542 hon. Gentleman not to oppose the publication for which he asked.
New Clause— (Return of punishments and complaints of prisoners to be made yearly.) (The Prison Commissioners shall make a yearly return to Parliament of all punishments of any kind whatsoever which may have been inflicted within the prison upon convicts, together with the causes of and reasons for such punishments; and shall report in their own (the convicts) language any complaints which may have reached them against the treatment which they may have received in the prison,)"— (Dr. Kenealy,)
—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that with regard to the letters and statements referred to by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Kenealy), he would point out to the Committee that they did not give a fair and proper view of the state of things existing in convict prisons. From inquiries he had made, he found that the treatment of prisoners in gaols —a subject of great interest to himself personally—was conducted on humane principles, that the complaints of prisoners were duly attended to, and that they were allowed as much correspondence with their friends as the rules and discipline of the prison would warrant. He would refer to a lecture by Dr. Richardson delivered at the London Institution, to show that in the prisons there was the purest air and the most equable temperature. The death-rate in some prisons had actually fallen to the rate of 3 per 1,000. The cases of whipping in one year was only 166, and in 1876 only 153. As to the Returns of punishment, they were made already every year, and would continue to be so made, and all the information desired by the hon. Member's Amendment was obtainable under existing means. With regard to visiting, the Visiting Justices saw the prisoners without the attendance of prison officials, and heard their complaints, and he thought the provisions of the present Bill would still enable them to carry out those objects in a satisfactory manner. He had no objection to accept the part of the clause providing that the Returns should be made 543 yearly to Parliament in the Blue Book; but he could not agree to the last part of the clause.

§ MR. BIGGAR
moved to report Progress. It was a late hour, and it was evident the House was not disposed to give attention to the discussion. On the front bench opposite he saw several Cabinet Ministers asleep, and they certainly had not heard the speech of the Home Secretary.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
hoped the Committee would allow the clause to be disposed of that night. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had met the proposition in a fair spirit, and it was only a question how far a principle which had been conceded should be carried. It was desirable that the Bill should be reprinted with the additions, in order to put it before the country. If the clause were disposed of, the other clauses might be discussed to-morrow should Business allow. If not, he hoped that hon. Members would forego the introduction of the remaining Amendments, until the Bill was brought up on Report. The Bill had been a long time before the House, and many lengthened discussions had taken place.

§ MR. BIGGAR
did not feel satisfied that such an important clause could be disposed of so hastily.

§ MR. MONK
thought the proposal was not an unreasonable one.

§ MR. SERJEANT SIMON
appealed to the hon. Member for Cavan not to persist in his Motion.

§ DR. KENEALY
also joined in the appeal. He would agree to limit his Amendment to the portion accepted by the Home Secretary.
After some discussion,

§ MR. PARNELL
said, it was all very well for the hon. Member for Stoke, who had made his speech on the subject, to advise going on. He (Mr. Parnell) was one of those who had not had an opportunity of speaking, and wished to say something on the subject. It was now a quarter past 1 o'clock, and he felt very tired and quite unequal to speaking now.

§ MR. DILLWYN
supported the Motion for reporting Progress.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he greatly desired to have the Bill reprinted before Easter, in order that the visiting justices at the ensuing quarter sessions might consider it as amended before the report was taken.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he did not feel influenced by the argument that it was desirable to prevent discussion. He did not see why the Bill should be pushed on without being discussed. [Cries of "Divide!"] Of course he should divide, but he might say that it would only be a repetition of Friday night, as the discussion could not go on at that hour.

§ MR. CALLAN
then moved that the Chairman leave the Chair. ["No, no!"]

§ MR. PARNELL
asked what portion of the clause the Government were prepared to accept?

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, the portion of the clause agreed to was that as to the annual Returns of punishments.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, then the most important part—as to the complaints of prisoners—was excluded.

§ MR. PARNELL
joined in thinking this was the most important part of the clause. It was entirely impossible for him or anyone else to go into the subject at that hour, and he hoped they would report Progress. What he would have to say to-morrow really would not occupy as much time as had been wasted to-night. Ho hoped the Government would not force another division on the point.

§ MR. KING - HARMAN
protested against the course taken, and said, if the clause were to be adopted, it had better provide for the latest editions of slang dictionaries being supplied to the House, so that complaints of convicts might be understood.

§ MR. P. A. TAYLOR
protested against the obstruction to Business.

§ MR. KIRK
moved to report Progress.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
protested against these repeated divisions on the part of such a small minority. It was evidently not the opinion of the Government, but that of the House against the minority.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, it was sometimes a duty to be in opposition to the House, and expressed his intention to proceed with a division.

MR. SULLIVAN
appealed to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Kirk) not to press his Motion. If any vital question were behind the Motion, there would not be only two Irish Members speaking.

§ MR. PARNELL
then moved that the Chairman leave the Chair, expressing regret that the majority should be so unreasonable.