SECOND READING. (Hansard, 26 June 1884)

§ MR. R. H. PAGET
criticized the terms prescribed by the Bill.

§ MR. HARRINGTON
said, the Bill was only circulated to-day, and hon. Members had not had an opportunity of studying it. It was not treating the House in a fair manner to bring it on in this way, so soon after its circulation, and at such a late hour. He himself had not studied the measure, but had glanced at the Memorandum which accompanied it, and certainly thought it opened up a very large subject of discussion, which would keep the House occupied a pretty considerable length of time. Even after they had devoted a long period to it, he did not believe they would pass it. It proposed to allow the removal of prisoners from one part of Her Majesty's Dominions to another— it would permit such a large scope of removal that those of them who wished to keep a jealous eye on the conduct of British gaols would be inclined to see it thoroughly thrashed out before passing into law. They might have prisoners removed from Ireland to the Colonies, which might mean transportation.

§ MR. EVELYN ASHLEY
said, he could put the hon. Member right in one word. The provisions of the Bill were simple, and had only a humane purpose. It was only intended to permit removals where the effect of keeping prisoners in the gaols in which they had been first confined would be to endanger health or life. The Bill was intended for such a case as this—where a European committed some crime in the tropics, in Sierra Leone, for instance, and was convicted and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. Imprisonment for any length of time would mean death to a European. Power was taken in the Bill to prevent such an accident. In Heligoland, moreover, there was no prison at all, and this Bill would give power to remove a prisoner convicted there to some other place.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he had carefully examined the Bill, and was disposed to think that it was not one that should be opposed as at all a dangerous measure. He believed it to have been dictated by feeling of humanity; but, at the same time, he wished to say a word as to the abuse of the system of putting Memoranda in front of Bills. If Mr. Speaker would look at the present Memorandum, he would see 1513 that it not only laid down the scope of the measure, but gave reasons why the House should pass it. It went the length of saying that the Bill had been sent by Circular to Colonial Governors, and had either been approved or not objected to by the great majority of them. The Memorandum also said that, though it was not likely that the necessity for putting in force the powers of the Bill would frequently arise, still it would occasionally occur. He put it to Mr. Speaker whether that was not an abuse of that liberty allowed to Members who introduced Bills for the purpose of giving a short indication of what the nature and scope of a Bill was? If this sort of thing were to be allowed, was there any limit to the debatable matter which could be introduced into a Memorandum?

§ MR. SPEAKER
I have to say, in reply to the hon. Member, that a Memorandum attached to a Bill should be a plain statement of the scope of the measure, and should contain nothing in the shape of argument.